Author: Informatyk A. Przybysz

The Western Bypass of Szczecin is one of the largest infrastructure investments in Poland. It holds strategic importance for the development of the West Pomeranian Voivodeship and creates numerous opportunities for local construction companies. The bypass consists of three sections: Kołbaskowo – Dołuje, Dołuje – Police, and Police – Goleniów. The tenders announced by the General Director of National Roads and Motorways are entering a decisive phase – offers have been opened, and the contracting authorities will select the contractors. The most demanding and longest section is Police – Goleniów, which also includes the tunnel under the Oder River. The high tender requirements and the complexity of the task are reflected in the content of the offers – as many as 4 out of 5 were submitted by consortia (contractor combining their forces to bid for the order). 

The implementation of bypass highlights the scale of coordination, financial, and legal challenges in multi-discipline contracts that require the cooperation of numerous entities (general contractors, including consortia, subcontractors, and contract engineers). The proceeding (including for the challenging tunnel under the Oder) confirm that projects worth hundreds of millions to billions require careful selection of the cooperation model (consortium vs subcontracting). Properly setting the terms determines responsibility and the ability to pursue claims, as well as impacts risk and margin. The tenders have been submitted primarily by companies with a nationwide reach. At the same time, the announcement of the proceedings’ results will open up opportunities for cooperation with smaller, local contractors. 

Analogous dilemmas in the offshore sector 

Similar dilemmas as in construction investments (who is responsible for what, how to secure payments down the supply chain, and regulate the details of cooperation) are now present in the offshore sector. In the case of offshore wind farms, in addition to the centralized model, where the investor enters into a contract with a single general contractor responsible for the overall project implementation (including coordination of numerous subcontractors, suppliers, or service providers), the multi-contract and hybrid strategies are also used. The multi-contract strategy involves dividing the project into various scopes and entering into separate agreements for each element (e.g. delivery of turbines or foundations). This gives the investor greater control over the selection and management of individual supplies but also comes with challenges in project management and coordination. Both approaches are linked by the hybrid strategy. This sector also involves cooperation within consortia or as subcontractors. Such a giant venture may be difficult for a single, even well-prepared company to carry out. It is important to remember that penalties for issues can absorb all profits, and the risks are high. 

Consortium 

A consortium agreement is an “unnamed contract”, shaped by the freedom of contract, flexibly regulating the cooperation of companies on a single project. This contract gains importance under the Public Procurement Law, which recognizes the possibility of consortium members jointly bidding for a contract. Ultimately, it enables obtaining an order when fulfilling participation conditions requires complementary resources from multiple entities (experience, personnel, equipment potential, interdisciplinary specialization). It is worth considering a consortium when risks and financing need to be shared “upstream” in one offer or agreement, However, the use of this structure comes with specific risks – public procurement law provides for joint liability towards the contracting authority. Additionally, formalities must be observed, including preparing the appropriate agreement (which should regulate internal divisions of responsibility and compensation) and designating the consortium leader. 

Subcontracting 

Subcontracting applies not only to investments carried out under public procurement law. The basic provision in this regard is – well known in the construction industry – Article 647¹ of the Civil Code. It provides for joint liability of the investor for payment of the subcontractor’s remuneration for completed works, provided that statutory conditions are met. In the case of public procurement law, the liability is broader – it may also cover remuneration for deliveries or other services performed by the subcontractor. Unlike consortium members, subcontractors are not jointly responsible towards the contracting authority, but in some cases, they can seek payment from it. To fully benefit from the advantages of subcontracting, it is essential to observe numerous formalities arising from the provisions and agreements between the investor and the contractor, particularly the written notification of the scope of work being carried out. 

Consortium or subcontracting? 

Determining the appropriate cooperation model and drafting the associated agreements are among the most important issues in both construction and offshore sectors. Mistakes and omissions in this regard can lead to years of disputes and cause payment delays, potentially even the collapse of a company 

The choice between a consortium and subcontracting requires: 

• checking the requirements of the contracting authority,
• assessing the scope of the investment and available resources,
• determining whether it is possible to segregate specific parts of the work or if ongoing cooperation is necessary,
• analysing responsibility towards the investor and the ability to claim direct payment,
• negotiating with potential consortium partners, general contractors, and subcontractors to understand their intentions and capabilities. 

Another, no less important step is appropriately regulating cooperation principles and the content of agreements, and in the case of subcontractors, making the proper notifications (including ensuring the general contractor complies!). This will minimize risks. 

Local content in the Western Bypass of Szczecin and offshore projects 

In the tenders for the bypass project, numerous offers from large companies – nationwide and international entities, including consortium bids were submitted. The choice of contractors will also open opportunities for smaller, local construction companies and suppliers or service providers. For these companies, entering into appropriate agreements (especially for subcontracting or further subcontracting) could be a unique opportunity for growth and the acquisition of valuable experience, which may later enable them to undertake large contracts independently. 

In this context, it is important to note that the development of the West Pomeranian Offshore Valley generates enormous potential linked to ongoing and planned investments. Also, in this sector, local companies will increasingly take advantage of development opportunities and face the choice of an appropriate cooperation model. 

We must not forget that as Polish entrepreneurs, most of us don’t have experience in this sector and are still building the necessary competencies. The influx of Western investors, companies with large assets, and experience in erecting wind turbines provides a unique opportunity to gain not only capital but also the expertise needed to execute future projects. 

Collaboration in this area is therefore extremely important. The choice of cooperation model may be crucial, as it could determine whether companies gain essential experience or are deprived of it – in the case of simply executing limited subcontracting scopes. 

Building local know-how in this sector has the potential to significantly contribute to the development of the entire offshore market in Poland, while minimizing risks related to inexperience and high global competition, including the presence of “big players.” 

In the offshore context, where financial and operational risks are particularly high, and investments require advanced management, participation in a consortium allows not only sharing the burdens but also learning from experienced partners and building local competencies. With the influx of Western investors who possess the necessary know-how and capital, Polish companies have the chance to grow rapidly – but only if their cooperation is properly regulated and coordinated. Correctly establishing the cooperation model and strictly adhering to procedures – especially regarding formal subcontractor notifications – are key factors in preventing risks such as delays and disputes, which could impact the success of the investment and the sustainability of the local supply chain. 

Ultimately, building local content in the offshore sector is not only about achieving profits but, above all, about the long-term process of strengthening the position of local companies in the demanding and global marine energy market. 

The right choice of cooperation model and the ability to manage complex consortium and subcontractor relationships is now the foundation for the success and competitiveness of the entire industry in Poland and globally. 

Imagine the scene: a wealthy entrepreneur, let’s call him John, has just spent millions on a luxury yacht, dreaming of carefree cruises across the Mediterranean. On the first trip, suddenly, a malfunction in the navigation system occurs. 

Instead of panicking, John makes a quick phone call to the dealer, and within hours, a service team is onboard. They not only fix the issue but also train the crew on how to avoid similar situations in the future. John not only continues his holiday but also becomes a loyal brand ambassador, recommending it to his friends 

This is just one example of how aftersales services can turn a potential disaster into a triumph of loyalty. 

What is aftersales 

Aftersales service in the context of yachts is not just about repairs and spare parts; it’s an entire support ecosystem after the transaction: from servicing, to training, to legal and technical advice. 

Aftersales, or processes that support products after they have been sold, are often triggered by unpredictable events, like malfunctions. This makes them even more complex. In the maritime industry, where yachts are investments worth millions, aftersales must account for extreme operating conditions, international regulations, and the individual needs of the owners. 

Why it is important 

Aftersales is not a “necessary evil” – driven by law or customer complaints – but an authentic market need that can become a powerful tool for standing out from the competition. In the nautical sector, where customers expect not only a product, but also solid aftersales support, it builds trust and loyalty. 

Aftersales and brand reputation 

Aftersales services can generate significant portions of revenue, becoming a key differentiator when products become similar. 

Everyone in the industry knows the Sunreef brand. The company reports that repeat customers make up a significant portion of orders, and their loyalty is largely due to aftersales: fast repairs in ports worldwide, crew training, and personalized upgrades. 

Conclusion 

In an era when the yacht market is growing – as seen at the 2025 Cannes Yachting Festival, which showcased over 700 units, including hybrid giants – aftersales is becoming a strategic asset. The development of service centers and hybrid technologies highlights that companies investing in aftersales support won’t just survive; they will dominate the market, building relationships for years to come. 

This story continues in our next article, where we look at aftersales through the eyes of the industry itself – brokers, shipyards, and dealers.

Aftersales in the yachting industry – between client expectations and industry obligations – part II 

 

Maritime shipping is an activity associated with high risk. Accidents, collisions, environmental pollution, or damage to cargo can lead to claims amounting to hundreds of millions of euros. This is why maritime law includes a limited liability fund for maritime claims. 

What is the role of the fund?

The limited liability fund for maritime claims serves a protective function for both the shipowner and the creditors. Instead of being liable with all of their assets, the shipowner deposits a certain sum of money or provides appropriate security to the court. Creditors can then use this amount to satisfy their claims. 

This solution increases the predictability of liability and allows maritime activities to be conducted without the risk of immediate insolvency. As a result, all victims have access to a common “pool of money”, and the distribution is proportional. The shipowner is assured that their financial liability will not exceed the limit set by law. 

What is the amount of the fund?

The amount of the fund is not determined arbitrarily. It is calculated according to the international rules of the London Convention LLMC, which Poland adopted in its Maritime Code. The amount primarily depends on the ship’s tonnage and the type of claims. 

This solution aims to maintain balance: creditors are not left without protection, and the shipowner does not bear unlimited liability. 

How is the fund created 

Most often, the fund is established by the shipowner or their liability insurer. It can also be created by the charterer or another entity responsible for the specific incident. 

In Poland, the responsible party submits a request to the district court – Economic Department for Maritime Matters – to create the fund. They then deposit the required amount into the fund or present a bank or insurance guarantee for the corresponding amount. 

Once the fund is established, the court publicly announces it and invites creditors to file claims within a specified period. The court then reviews the claims and ultimately distributes the fund among creditors. If the total amount of claims exceeds the fund’s value, payments are made proportionally. 

What is the fund?

The limited liability fund is a compromise between the interests of the shipowner and the injured parties. In practice: 

• the shipowner protects themselves from unlimited liability and the risk of bankruptcy,
• creditors are guaranteed that their claims will be considered in a uniform, transparent procedure,
• the court oversees the fair distribution of funds. 

What are the limitations of the fund 

It is important to note that the fund does not always fully satisfy all claims. In the case of very serious disasters, such as large-scale environmental pollution, the total value of damages may far exceed the fund’s value. In such cases, the victims only receive a portion of the amount owed to them. 

This system is often criticized as being too favorable to shipowners. On the other hand, the liquidation of the fund could completely paralyze maritime activity, as no one would be able to bear unlimited liability. 

Summary 

The limited liability fund for maritime claims is a mechanism that ensures a balance between protecting the interests of the victims and maintaining the stability of shipping companies. Thanks to it, a maritime accident does not necessarily mean the end of a shipowner’s business, and creditors have access to a fair and supervised distribution of funds. Although not always fully satisfactory for everyone, the fund is one of the most important legal instruments that keep global shipping in motion.

The Italian shipbuilding group (with strong Chinese capital involvement) has been at the center of an international scandal for several months. Italian prosecutors are investigating allegations of industrial espionage after alleged wiretapping devices were found in the office of one of the Chinese directors of the group. 

This is one example of how brutal the competition for competitive edges is in the yacht industry, which is worth tens of billions of dollars. Intellectual property is also a tangible asset here. When a project can generate millions of euros in profit, the temptation to copy the competition’s solutions grows. 

In this publication, we will discuss the most common types of infringements and ways to protect against them. 

Design that costs 

Copying external designs is a major issue in the yacht industry. Modern yachts are often works of art. The hull design has not only functional but also aesthetic importance. However, the boundary between inspiration and plagiarism is often difficult to define. 

Design disputes typically concern distinctive elements – the hull line, the railing line, the shape of windows, the proportions of the superstructure, or the bow profile. Shipyards invest hundreds of thousands of euros in design work, only to watch as competitors quickly introduce “similar” models to the market. Motor yacht models in the 15-30 meter range are particularly vulnerable to copying – this is a segment where design plays a crucial role in sales success. Italian shipyards have been waging a more or less open war for years about whose design was “first”. 

Trademark wars 

The second most common type in infringement is unauthorized use of trademarks. In the yacht industry, branding is of enormous importance. Buying a yacht is often a prestige decision, where the manufacturer’s name is just as important as the quality of the product. Problems arise especially in Asian markets, where local manufacturers treat European trademarks “freely”. This concerns not only shipyard names but also specific yacht model designations and characteristic logos placed on the hull. 

Shipyards must also protect themselves from counterfeit spare parts. Equipment sold under premium brands may not necessarily be genuine. Importantly, this is not just a financial issue, but also a safety threat! 

Theft of know-how 

Another problem is the unlawful use of technical solutions and know-how. Modern yachts are technologically advanced floating units made from innovative composite materials, equipped with advanced navigation systems, or featuring cutting-edge multimedia solutions.  

Particularly vulnerable are: 

• innovative hull construction solutions,
• smart yacht management systems,
• propulsion system solutions,
• materials and composite production technologies. 

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the industry is relatively small – specialists often “move” between competing shipyards, taking knowledge about production processes and technical solutions with them and introducing them to competitors. 

Legal and financial consequences 

Intellectual property violations in the yacht industry can cost a fortune. Courts can award high damages for losses caused by copying designs or counterfeiting brands. 

Affected shipyards may demand: 

• cease and desist from production and sales of infringing products,
• compensation for lost profits,
• compensation for damage to their reputation. 

In particularly egregious cases, when there is systematic copying of competitor’s product portfolio, damages can amount to millions of euros. 

How to protect yourself 

Effective protection of intellectual property in the yacht industry requires a comprehensive strategy. Actions that can be taken as part of this strategy include: 

Registration of protective rights – industrial designs, trademarks, and patents should be registered not only in Europe but also in Asian and American markets. The cost of global registration is a fraction of potential losses. 

Market monitoring – regularly tracking the activities of competitors and new products being introduced to the market allows for quick detection of potential infringements. The faster we react, the more effective the legal action will be. 

Securing know-how – confidentiality clauses in employee contracts, restricting access to sensitive information, and properly securing technical documentation are essential to protecting against know-how theft. 

Cooperation with customs authorities – registering trademarks with customs authorities facilitates the detection and seizure of counterfeit products at borders. 

The future of IP protection in yachting 

The yachting industry is currently experiencing innovations. Electric drives, smart management systems, next-generation composite materials – all of this will require even more effective protection of intellectual property. 

Shipyards that invest in a comprehensive IP protection strategy today will have a competitive advantage in the coming years. The costs of such a strategy are usually a fraction of the marketing budget, but the benefits can be crucial for survival in a competitive market. 

In a world where one successful design can bring enormous profits, intellectual property protection is no longer optional – it is a condition of success. 

If this topic is of interest to you, we invite you to read our other publications on intellectual property: 

• intellectual property protection 
• objections before the patent office – how to defend your yacht from plagiarism
• yacht keel and copyright – an unusual pair

In maritime transport, the bill of lading and the sea waybill are the most important documents that confirm the conclusion of the goods transport contract and their takeover by the carrier. Although they serve similar functions, they differ significantly, which is important in everyday transport management. The choice of the appropriate document affects transport processes, insurance, and the future of digitization in the industry. Let’s check the details. 

Basic differences between the bill of lading and sea waybill 

The first significant difference to note is the issue of the transferability of both documents. The bill of lading is a transferable document, meaning that the holder of the bill of lading can sell or transfer the right to the goods to another party during transport. The sea waybill does not grant such a right. 

The bill of lading also serves as a title to the cargo – the owner has the right to receive the goods and can also use it to secure a debt, such as a form of credit collateral. In the case of the sea waybill, such an option does not exist. 

Practical consequences of choosing the document 

Depending on the nature of the transport, the choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill can be very important. The waybill is particularly beneficial when the consignor and consignee have a long-term and trusted business relationship. In such situations, where neither party expects a change in the ownership of the goods during transport, this document simplifies the process of releasing the goods at the destination port. The consignee can receive the goods based on the data in the document, without the need to present the original SWB. 

On the other hand, the bill of lading is more suitable when there is a need to transfer ownership of the goods during transport, for example, when the goods are used in trade or need to be secured on behalf of a bank or another entity. In such cases, the bill of lading serves as a negotiable instrument, providing greater flexibility in managing the transport. 

Practical use of the sea waybill 

As mentioned, the sea waybill is particularly applicable in relationships where the consignor and consignee trust each other and prefer a simplified transport procedure. An example could be transactions between companies that regularly cooperate and do not anticipate any changes in the ownership of the goods during transport. In such a case, the SWB allows for the quick and efficient release of the goods, without the need to wait for the original documents to be sent. 

The sea waybill is also advantageous when the consignee has paid the freight in advance. Since there is no need to present the original document, the entire transport process becomes more flexible and less burdened with formalities. 

Impact of transport documents on cargo insurance 

The choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill also affects insurance procedures. The bill of lading, being the title to the goods, is necessary when the goods are insured and when it is necessary to transfer the rights to the cargo during transport. In this case, the owner of the bill of lading can claim compensation in the event of damage or loss of goods, having full rights to the claim. 

In the case of the sea waybill, the consignee does not have the title to the cargo, so they cannot sell it or secure it under credit. Therefore, insurance claims may be more complicated, especially when it comes to transferring ownership rights to the goods. 

The future of transport documents – digitization 

The increasing digitization of maritime transport is leading to the potential integration of documents such as the bill of lading and sea waybill with blockchain technology, which will significantly enhance the security of their circulation. Such solutions will allow for faster and safer document transfers, eliminating the risk of their loss, and making supply chain management easier. 

Summary 

The choice between the bill of lading and the sea waybill depends on the nature of the transport and the needs related to transferring ownership rights to the goods. The bill of lading is more appropriate in the transport of goods where the transfer of ownership during transport is required. Meanwhile, the sea waybill works best when the transport is based on trust between the consignor and the consignee and there is no need to transfer ownership rights to the cargo. Understanding these differences allows for selecting the most suitable solution, minimizing risks and simplifying the entire logistical process. 

In April, we wrote about the development of the “trade war” between the EU and the US and its impact on the yachting industry. Since then, the situation has changed, and from a dynamic escalation of tensions, we are moving toward an optimistic plan for an agreement. A few days ago, the European Commission published a draft of changes that are expected to be introduced soon. These are the assumptions that EU and US leaders intend to implement. 

New tariff rate 

According to previous statements by Donald Trump, tariffs on goods from the EU, such as pharmaceuticals, cars, and electronics, reached 25%, excluding the rates functioning under WTO rules (which, in practice, sometimes set rates at 27.5%). According to the agreement, tariffs on most goods will be reduced to 15%. This rate is to be complete (i.e., it will include the WTO rate) and will apply to most goods imported to the US from the EU. For now, there is no information on whether the rate will also apply to recreational vessels, such as yachts and their parts. 

Scope of the agreement 

The agreement does not clarify all issues. It is not known whether the regulations will cover all areas of the industry, or if some will be excluded. In this regard, it is unclear what impact this will have on the yacht industry and the maritime sector. As a result of the talks, the EU has withdrawn from imposing 30% retaliatory tariffs on recreational boats from the US, which may impact the competitiveness of boat suppliers and potentially increase exports. 

Tariffs on steel and aluminum 

The joint statement did not address tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. The content of these metals in products is now subject to a 50% tariff, and the US Department of Commerce has added further goods made from these raw materials to the tariff list. This may affect the prices of parts imported from the US, including products crucial to the yacht industry. Already included in the list are items such as outboard motors, as well as hydraulic or electrical accessories. In this case, we can only hope that as a result of further talks, goods imported from the EU will be excluded from such tariffs. 

The near future 

Although the provisions in the agreement are not yet in effect, they offer hope for an improvement in relations between the EU and the US, and thus for a better situation for entrepreneurs (including those in the yacht industry) on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. If the next talks proceed in a similar tone, we can expect favorable solutions in terms of trade and tariff rates. 

Shipwrecks have long fascinated maritime enthusiasts and divers alike. For some, they are a valuable cultural heritage, while for others, they are attractive tourist destinations or potential sources of financial gain. 

However, behind every wreck lies a complex legal question: who holds rights to the wreck, what obligations arise from discovering it, and what risks may be associated with its exploration? 

What does the law say 

Regulations regarding shipwrecks can be found in several legal acts, both at the international and domestic levels. Key regulations include: 

• UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001)

This convention establishes rules for the protection of shipwrecks that are at least 100 years old. The main goal is to prevent looting of wrecks and protect their historical value. Poland ratified this convention, meaning it applies to wrecks found in Polish territorial waters. 

• United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 

UNCLOS governs the rights to shipwrecks in the high seas and in exclusive economic zones. In the case of wrecks of significant historical or cultural value, a state may claim rights to protect or conserve these objects. 

• Polish national regulations 

Shipwrecks found in Polish waters are also subject to the Act on the Protection and the Care of Monuments and Maritime Law. A wreck recognized as a monument cannot be removed without the approval of the relevant heritage protection authorities. 

Who has the right to the wreck 

The right to a wreck depends on several factors: 

• the age of the wreck and its status as a monument – wrecks older than 100 years are often treated as cultural heritage and are protected, regardless of their owner; 

• the location of the wreck – if the wreck is located in territorial waters, it is subject to the laws of that state. In international waters, international regulations apply; 

• ownership rights – if the ship’s owner still exists (e.g., the shipowner or their heirs), they may claim rights to the wreck. 

What are the obligations arising from wreck exploration 

Individuals or companies involved in wreck exploration must remember several key obligations: 

• reporting the discovery – in Poland, the discovery of a shipwreck must be reported to the appropriate maritime office. Failing to report the discovery can lead to legal liability, including administrative penalties; 

• obtaining permits – exploring and recovering a wreck requires obtaining the necessary permits, particularly if the wreck is considered a monument. Failure to obtain permits can result in the confiscation of recovered items and financial penalties; 

• environmental protection – wreck exploration can involve the risk of water contamination (e.g., fuel leakage). Explorers are required to comply with environmental protection regulations. 

What are the legal and practical risks 

Wreck exploration carries risks such as: 

• ownership disputes – in the case of a dispute over the rights to the wreck, the matter may be taken to court or international arbitration; 

• accusations of looting – unlawful actions, such as removing objects from wrecks without permission, can lead to accusations of cultural heritage theft; 

• liability for environmental damage – pollution of the marine environment during exploration can result in hefty fines. 

Conclusion 

Shipwrecks are not only fascinating objects of research and tourism but also sources of complex legal challenges. Understanding and complying with relevant regulations helps avoid conflicts and legal risks. If you plan to explore wrecks or face legal challenges related to them, it is worth consulting a law firm specializing in maritime law.