Online Archive - Browsing 2002 article summaries

The Owners began arbitration to recover an outstanding demurrage claim after hearing no Charterer-reply to their invoices. The Owners based their claim on prima facie. Read full article...

When the Charterer cancelled the contract and refused to supply cargo on both the original and mitigated voyages, the Owner began arbitration in order to recover the resulting deadfreight damages. The Charterer blames the broker in constructing a contract outside of the Charterer’s instructions which absolves the Charterer from a binding agreement to supply cargo. Read full article...

The primary dispute at arbitration was the proper assessment of bunker consumption and speed allowances in a time charter contract. Because the Vessel exceeded these recap minimums, the Owner demanded reimbursement. However, the Charterer argued that the claim was time-barred, but in response submitted a counterclaim for pumping deficiencies. Read full article...

When the Vessel arrived at disport, the discharged cargo was found to be contaminated upon sampling. The Charterer subsequently claimed damages in light of the loadport samples being uncontaminated. However, the Owners refuted the loadport samples’ accuracy and argued that they were taken forty-nine days prior to loading and only from one of the two terminal tanks. Read full article...

After discharging, there was over 5000 bbls of unpumpable cargo remaining in Vessel tanks. The Owners began arbitration for withheld freight costs on the grounds that the Charterers told the Vessel to keep cargo as cool as possible, which inadvertently rendered it unpumpable. The Owners further claim that the burden to prove that the ROB was liquid and pumpable falls on the Charterers. Read full article...

This arbitration dispute hinges on an Owner’s claim for pumping demurrage and detention from canal blockage by another vessel. In their defense, the Charterers claim that the Owner violated the contracted pump warranty and have no grounds for demurrage while also stating that the Owner should have been aware of possible delays in the Chelsea Street Bridge Safety Zone. Read full article...

At disport, the Vessel’s cargo was degraded because of contaminant residue in the Vessel’s portable hose. Although the Owner’s hose is the apparent source of the impurities, the Owner denies responsibility on the grounds that the contamination occurred after the cargo had left the Vessel’s manifold. Read full article...

Because the previous voyage’s berth to disport was clogged by a state-owned vessel, the Vessel had an estimated loadport ETA outside of the demands of the Charterers’ cargo interest. So, a new agreement was made where the Vessel would temporarily abandon her current voyage, load the Charterers’ cargo, and transship the previous cargo later. The Vessel sailed to loadport, however was notified by her previous Charterer that transshipment would not be allowed, which forced the Charterers to renegotiate their sales contracts. Read full article...

After a timely demurrage claim was made for a part cargo voyage, the Charterer did not respond to any Owner request for payment. After three years of non-compliance, the Owner reevaluated the claim to include interest and began arbitration. Read full article...

This arbitration began as a result of the Charterer’s refusal to pay demurrage for an extended laycan at discharge. The Charterer claims that the Vessel violated the pump warranty, and therefore, excess time at disport is for the Owner’s account. The Owners counterclaim that the pumping logs are consistent with the warranty and that the dock’s inferior manifold connections were the cause of delay. Read full article...

Upon completing load operations, the Owners discovered that the Charterers shortloaded the Vessel by about 462 mt. The Owners subsequently began arbitration to recover the deadfreight damages and additional demurrage. Read full article...

While at sea, the Vessel suffered a breakdown that left her with only one operating generator. And once at disport, the Charterer complained of pumping delays and argued that such delays were faulted by the lack of generator power. The Owners, on the other hand, claimed that the lack of terminal shorelines for discharge caused the delays. Read full article...

The Charterers paid an additional freight premium to keep their “high pour” cargo heated to 110°F. However, 6,000 bbls remained on board due to heating coils being out of place and insufficient crude oil washing. The Charterers began arbitration to recover the Owner-faulted cargo loss. Read full article...