Lloyd`s Standard Form Of Salvage Agreement

In 1980, to remedy this situation, the Lloyd`s Open (LOF) Open Form (LOF) provided that a failed oil tanker should benefit from recovery services and guarantee a reward, provided that the Salvor exercised the necessary diligence to try to save the marine environment from pollution. This innovation proved very successful and the international community was so pleased and impressed that a few years later, the 1989 bailout agreement came into force and adopted this new idea of LOF. In particular, Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention define the modern basis for awarding the award. [9] [10] Lloyd`s was not rude to the arbitration reform proposals. The meeting closed on the grounds that a new draft standard form should be developed to replace all existing forms. The development was entrusted to Sir Henry Johnson of Waltons, who attended the meeting. It became the first Lloyd`s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement, which was published in January 1908. The agreement provided that the representatives were required to inform Lloyd`s, once the services were completed, of the amount they needed in terms of security. This reflected the objective that, whether a fixed-price contract or not, final compensation should be determined by an arbitration of the committee or its designated arbitrator, unless, after a cooling-off period, all parties were satisfied that the agreed price was fair. In addition to the well-known form of the Lloyd`s Open, there are several other national forms of rescue, such as the U.S. form, beijing form, Moscow form, Turkish form and so on.

However, these contracts are generally used only by ships and salvoirs in the waters of the countries concerned or whose nationals are nationals. The recent creation of the contract was carried out following in-depth discussions with various interest groups in the sector, including the main rescue companies, the International Union of Salvage, insurers, arbitrators and the Admiralty Solicitors Group. In an attempt to respond to the UIS`s criticism of Lloyd`s arbitration system, provisions were introduced to give all parties the right to be heard and to provide evidence. It was hoped that this would allay the Salvors` fears that an arbitrator, with no practical recovery experience and no relevant technical expertise, would not be able to fully assess the true value of the services provided. Traditionally, the rescue reward was submitted to the Salvor who successfully saved the ship or cargo, and if neither is saved, the Salvor receives nothing, so much time and money have been spent on the project. This hard principle is called “no healing, no salary”; and at the top of page 1 of the LOF, under the title “rescue agreement,” is an explanation of this fundamental premise. [5] Lloyd`s rejected the insurers` proposal because its constitution did not allow it to be a salvage company. Instead, it was agreed to redouble efforts to obtain a standard form of the recovery agreement, including the concept of conciliation by the committee or its appointed arbitrator. However, until 1898, the text of the Treaty of November 1892 had received broad support, with the exception of the Copenhagen ISU and Berging Maatschappij, which continued to use the separate forms that were agreed with them in 1891.