Please read carefully the following legal case relating to a claim for a cargo damaged by the improper functioning of a

[answerhappygod]

Please read carefully the following legal case relating to a
claim for a cargo damaged by the improper functioning of a
vessel’s insulating chamber and answer ALL questions in this
Section.
Fuji Harvest v Australasian Shipping Company Ltd
[2013]
The Plaintiff claimed damages for negligence and breach of duty
on the part of defendants in the carriage of bananas by the
vessel "Lotus" from Fuji to Australia. There was a bill of
lading relating to this cargo issued by the Defendant. The
largest portion of the cargo was placed in the insulating
chamber, for which a higher rate of freight was charged. The part
of the cargo carried outside of the insulating chamber arrived
in good condition, but that in the insulating chamber became
so damaged that part of it had to be destroyed and part fetched
very low prices.
The Plaintiff suffered from a loss on the shipment amounted to US$
154,000, who alleged that the insulating machinery on this
voyage was incapable of doing, and did not do, its
work efficiently, and that the fruit was, in consequence,
damaged. The Defendant said they did all that it was their
duty to do in respect of the shipment and that the loss was due to
perils of the sea and, or in the alternative, to inherent vice
in the bananas.
By Hague-Visby Rules Article III, there is, in every bill of
lading, an implied warranty that the ship shall be, at the
beginning of the voyage, seaworthy in all respects; and that if the
ship is so seaworthy, the owner shall not be liable for damage
to the goods resulting from perils of the sea and inherent
vice. "Seaworthiness" should not be limited to mere fitness to
encounter sea perils, but would also include the fitness of
the machinery controlling the insulating chamber.
In the statement of defense, the Defendant raised a point which
must be dealt with before the merits of the case could be
considered. They contended that the Plaintiff could not bring
this action because the claim was not notified within 7 days
of the arrival of the "Lotus" at the port of discharge, as
required by clause 17 of the bill of lading. If this clause was
applicable, the contention was good and the Plaintiff would be out
of Court.
The Plaintiff contended that it was not applicable where the damage
was due to the unseaworthiness of the ship. This led to the
question, "What was the contract between the parties"? The
contract, so far as it is expressed, is contained in the bill of
lading. An examination of the bill of lading showed that it
contained no stipulation as to seaworthiness. The
question then, was whether the condition as to the notice
applied where the damage arose through a breach of the implied
warranty of seaworthiness.
a, Assume the Court was satisfied with the proof that the fruit
was shipped in good condition and properly packed, but the
insulating chamber was not in working order, what would
be your legal grounds, if you were the Judge, in ruling that
the Defendant was liable due to their breach of seaworthiness
duty, even though the bill of lading being the
contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not
contain any seaworthiness requirement?
b. If the Court agreed with the Plaintiff with regard to the
malfunctioning of the insulating chamber at the commencement
of the voyage, while the fact that the portion of the
cargo shipped outside of the insulating chamber arrived in
good order necessarily evidenced the good carrying condition
of the cargo, would you as the Judge deny the Plaintiff’s claim
due to their less than 7 days’ insufficient claim notification
as alleged by the Defendant? Why or why not?