Online Archive - Browsing 1999 article summaries

Throughout the life of the time charter, the Vessel was declared off-hire on numerous occasions for tank wall cleaning purposes. And at the end of the contract, the Charterers billed the Owners for the entirety of the time spent off-hire plus the cost of the tank cleaning chemicals. Read full article...

The Vessel had been nominated by the Buyer and subsequently accepted by the Seller. But upon arrival to loadport, the placement of the Vessel’s manifolds made loading impossible and the Vessel was summarily rejected by the Seller. The Buyer claimed that the Seller breached the sales agreement by not rejecting the Vessel in a timely matter and began arbitration to recover cancellation expenses. Read full article...

The Charterers agreed to the Owners’ demurrage invoice; however, they failed to deliver payment over the course of several months. The Owners began arbitration to collect demurrage plus interest. Read full article...

After sampling the cargo and finding it off spec, the Receiver’s insurance company demanded that the Owner pay for cargo reconditioning. The Owner argued that, upon delivery, the cargo was more pure than the Receiver’s average stock and counterclaimed for punitive cleaning damages. Read full article...

Because of the falling market prices for oil, the Charterer ordered the Vessel to proceed directly to disport after loading and to exercise a “high speed” option that would make her minimum speed 15 knots. However, without a clear discharge program, the Owner decided to divert the Vessel in order to re-stock bunkers. And when billed for the subsequent demurrage and high speed premium, the Charterers refused to pay and counterclaimed for lost profits from a delayed delivery. Read full article...

The Vessel missed her laycan at loadport, but due to the Owners’ misrepresented ETA for the last layday, the Charterers were not aware of any possible delay until after the cancellation date. And further delays were introduced after part cargo storage confusion and the resulting Charterers’ refusal to deliver an LOI until new Bills of Lading were written to fix the confusion. Likewise, the Owners refused to unload until the time spent waiting for LOI was compensated. Read full article...

The Vessel was to be loaded with three separate part cargoes, however the tankermen failed to switch the barge tanks in time to accommodate the cargo changeover in the terminal’s pipeline. The Owner began arbitration to recover damages from the resulting cargo mixing and contamination. Read full article...

The Vessel was notified by her agents that she would likely be able to berth upon arrival; however, the terminal unexpectedly berthed another vessel out of turn and forced the Vessel to wait an additional 30H for a free berth. When the Owners billed this as demurrage, the Charterers argued that they were not responsible for the terminal’s mix-up and define this situation as “beyond their control.” Read full article...

After the Owners’ rejection of the original loadport terminal, the berth was moved to Paktank Richmond at the Owners’ request. However, the Vessel grounded in the berth’s channel due to an incorrect draft publication. The Owners argued that the Charterers did not provide a safe berth for the Vessel and demanded deadfreight compensation, while the Charterers maintained that the Owners nominated the new port and are therefore responsible for any problems resulting from the change. Read full article...

The Owners had conceded that they wrongfully cancelled the charter, but arbitration was necessary to appropriate the amount of damages due the Charterers. Read full article...

En route to loadport, the Charterers instructed the Vessel to not tender her NOR until 0700 on the first day of laycan. However, the Owners communicated an ETA change to 0001 with no protest from the Charterers and thereby formally arrived at that time. But later, the Charterers contend that they were not notified of any arrival change and are therefore exempt from demurrage between the NOR tender and the originally agreed ETA. Read full article...

Although the Vessel was all-fast at disport, a typhoon warning stopped all discharge and forced the Vessel off the berth. The Charterers claim that this time should be considered a weather induced delay and be billed only at half the demurrage rate as per the charter party clause. The Owners argued that because the allotted laytime had not expired, the half-demurrage rate should not apply. Read full article...