Online Archive - Browsing 1998 article summaries

Because of terminal pump limitations for part cargoes, the Vessel could not satisfy the pump warranty stipulated in the charter party. The Owners then subsequently requested to calculate the pump credit by the difference between the theoretical time at 100 PSI against the actual time. Read full article...

This arbitration centers upon two separate instances during voyage where the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage. At the loadport, the Owners counted laytime until the Vessel completed unmooring instead of up to the traditional “hoses off.” The other argument was over laytime calculations at disport when adverse weather temporarily halted discharge. Read full article...

This arbitration covers several key issues such as tank testing expenses at berth, dock labor charges not related to cargo carriage, tug standby costs, demurrage at berth, and the interest rate for delayed payment. Read full article...

This voyage’s fixed discharge port was a Citgo dock where berthing priority was given to other Citgo vessels. So when the Vessel failed to meet the minimum speed warranty (and therefore missed laycan), she lost her place in line for berth to a Citgo ship. When billed for this delay, the Charterers contend that they should be exempt from invoicing because if the Owner had followed the speed warranty, the berth would have been free upon arrival. Read full article...

In order to arrive at the designated disport, the Vessel needed to lighter her cargo to meet the maximum transit draft. But due to five different “errors of judgment” by the Vessel’s Master, The Charterer demanded that the Owner both reimburse the lightering expenses and drastically reduce the voyage’s demurrage claim. Read full article...

This arbitration centered upon disputed language between charter party exception clauses. The Owners had to transship cargo due to ice restrictions to the original disport, a task which the Owners’ claim falls under the language of Clause 14 (“if port … is inaccessible due to ice … any demurrage is responsibility of the Charterer”). But, there is a Transship Clause which states that “Owners have the option to transship the cargo at their own time.” Read full article...

The Vessel accrued demurrage at disport because of difficulties discharging a part cargo of semi-refined fish oil. The Owner blamed the Charterers’ cargo for the delay on the grounds that lines connected to the fish oil’s tanks were backed up with sludge and particles while other part cargoes were discharged without delay. Read full article...

Because the Bill of Lading was late in arriving, the freight payment due Owners was also delayed. In response, the Owners exercised their posessory lien on the cargo at the discharge port until the freight was paid, thereby accruing demurrage that the Owners’ claim was ultimately faulted by the Charterers. Read full article...

The Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of corn oil at one loadport as well as a fiber grade cargo of ethylene glycol at another. However, the Vessel’s zinc tanks failed numerous inspections for the ethylene glycol and caused the Charterer to cancel the charter party on the grounds that the Vessel was unready to load within the given laydays. Read full article...

Although the berthing delay at disport was caused by a typhoon, the Owners argue that their claim is valid because the typhoon happened sixteen days before berth. Subsequent changes could have been made to accommodate possible delays. Read full article...

As is customary discharge procedure for the port, the Owners discharged cargo under customs control. However, the Charterers found the shore tank empty and demanded reimbursement for the improper discharge of cargo to customs officials. Read full article...

Because the cargo was found to be off spec at disport, the Charterers accepted a US$100,000 settlement for the contamination. In addition to the settlement, the Owners submitted a demurrage claim for additional laytime at disport. However, the Charterers counterclaimed for excess handling costs and rejected the Owner’s invoice based on the cargo contamination and the Vessel’s inoperative radar. Read full article...

The Owners submitted a demurrage invoice within the 90-day time-bar, however, the Charterers contested its completeness upon submission. The Owners subsequently resubmitted the full claim to the broker on the last day of the time-bar, which they claim satisfies the charter party. Read full article...

Because the cargo was contaminated, the Charterers used the Vessel as an offshore storage facility while filtering the cargo into a useful form. The Owners argue that contamination came from the loadport’s inferior steel railcars, and therefore claim this extensive delay at disport as demurrage. The Charterers contended that the disport samples prove that the contamination occurred on the Vessel and counterclaimed for cargo damages. Read full article...

While discharging at the first of two disports, the Vessel failed to meet the charter party’s pump warranty. After the voyage, the Owners presented an adjusted demurrage claim that excluded laytime while not meeting the pump warranty at the first port. The Charterers, however, argued that no laytime at discharge after breaching the warranty, including laytime at the second port, can be counted as demurrage. Read full article...