2.4 Remaining layout
The main body of the thesis consists of three chapters. Chapters 3–4 seek together to answer the research question as it pertains to the 1B short notice situation, whereas Chapter 5 centres on the 1A scenario where the charterer redelivers in contravention of that which was positively communicated by way of notice.
Chapter 3 interprets the redelivery notice obligation i.e., what is required of a redelivery notice and what a notice does within the normative framework of the time charter. Building on the previous conclusions, chapter 4 discusses and puts forth the thesis position on the correct loss perspective in context of damages. Chapter 3’s perspective can be said to be negative in the sense that it is tailored for the effect of a 1B short or missing notice i.e., when notice transparently is insufficient.
In contrast, chapter 5 is based on a positive perspective in the sense that it examines whether the charterer is in some way bound by that which is positively communicated in a notice. There is a functional comparison between the perspectives applied in chapters 3 and 5 and the contract law concepts of failure to inform (misligholdt opplysningsplikt) and information risk (opplysningsrisiko), respectively. It can be regarded as a question of its own – even if the obligation to notify is merely an obligation to inform with no pre-defined pull on other contractual rules – whether one is still bound in some way by the information that one does give. There is of course an element in charter construction in this exercise as well, since any such binding effect can only be understood in light of the contractual obligation to which a notice responds.