Maritime transport contracts, as one of the most complex and specialized branches of international trade law, are based on precise agreements and mutual obligations between the carrier, the shipper, and the consignee. In this context, express and implied terms play a fundamental role in defining the scope of parties’ responsibilities, obligations, and rights. An express term refers to agreements explicitly and formally included in the contract, whereas an implied term is derived from circumstances, trade customs, or the inherent nature of the contract.



In Iranian domestic law, the analysis of these terms relies on general principles of contracts, the 1964 Maritime Code, and customary practices in maritime trade. In contrast, international instruments such as the Hague Rules (1924), Hamburg Rules (1978), and Rotterdam Rules (2008) provide a more comprehensive and harmonized framework for regulating the obligations and liabilities of carriers. Comparative study shows that international law tends to restrict implied terms through standardization of carrier obligations, while Iranian domestic law adopts a more flexible approach, considering trade customs and the specific conditions of each contract.



This analytical-comparative study examines the position, effects, and scope of validity of express and implied terms in maritime transport contracts, ultimately emphasizing the necessity of aligning Iran’s legal system more closely with international standards to ensure legal and commercial certainty.