To Port or Starboard? Why the Supreme Court Might Provide Direction to Those Navigating Choice-of-Law Questions in Maritime-Lien Cases: The 2015 Nicholas J. Healy Lecture

摘要

A British company owns two sister ships, Vessel A and Vessel B, that are identical in all relevant respects. They are both flagged in the United Kingdom. The British vessel owner charters the vessels to a Chinese shipping company, which uses the vessels to carry the same type of cargo. Indeed, Vessel A and Vessel B regularly follow the same shipping route that includes stops in Long Beach, California, and New York City. There is one difference between Vessel A and Vessel B. Vessel A is en route to New York City; Vessel B to Long Beach. During their journeys, Vessel A and Vessel B both obtain bunkers in the United Arab Emirates from a United Arab Emirates bunker supplier. The bunker supplier and shipping company use the same bunker confirmation form for both bunker transactions. The bunker confirmation form includes a choice-of-law clause that selects United States law to govern the contract. Unfortunately for the bunker supplier, the shipping company does not pay for the bunkers. As they continue on their respective routes, Vessel A sails into New York City, and Vessel B arrives at Long Beach. The bunker supplier, hoping to recover for the fuel bunkers, arrests both vessels. The bunker supplier contends that, under the Federal Maritime Lien Act ("FMLA"), its provision of necessaries in the United Arab Emirates created maritime liens in its favor on each vessel. Given that the Vessel A and Vessel B transactions are eerily-perchance designedly-similar, it stands to reason that the bunker supplier possesses either a maritime lien on both vessels, or no lien on either vessel. In light of the uncanny resemblance between its transactions with Vessel A and Vessel B, how could the bunker supplier possess a maritime lien on one vessel, but not the other? After all, the only difference between Vessel A and Vessel B is the port into which the vessels sailed. But both vessels sailed into ports within the United States. Therefore, the bunker supplier's rights with respect to each vessel would be the same regardless whether the vessels are docked in New York City or Long Beach, right?