Whether federal maritime law allows parol evidence to contradict unambiguous contract terms and whether a shipowner's duty of care during a force majeure event requires hindsight-based predictions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The questions presented are: 1. Whether, under federal maritime law, the unambiguous terms of a written maritime contract cannot be altered by parol evidence, as this Court has held, or can be contradicted and nullified by parol evidence where one party later claims certain terms were ‘intended for its benefit’, as the Fifth Circuit has now held. 2. Whether, under federal maritime law, a shipowner facing a force majeure event has a duty to exercise ordinary reasonable care, as this Court has held, where hindsight analysis cannot be used to determine the reasonableness of the shipowner’s actions, as held in the Eleventh Circuit and other federal courts, or if this duty requires a shipowner to act upon predictions only verifiable through hindsight knowledge, a new standard imposed by the Fifth Circuit.