Online Archive - Browsing 2003 article summaries

This arbitration dispute arose from a potentially invalid off-hire declaration by the Charterer. In this case, the Charterer declared the Vessel off-hire until proper CDI vetting approval; however, the Charterer also ordered the Vessel to undergo a voyage during this off-hire. So when the Owners were billed for this period, they argued that the Vessel was technically in use by the Charterer. Read full article...

After an initial vessel substitution, the new Vessel began voyage and tendered NOR at loadport during the designated laycan. Nevertheless, low pumping speeds extended laytime past laycan and gave reason for an Owner demurrage claim. The Charterers, however, refused to pay, arguing that flawed port agent information and Vessel confusion led to a misunderstanding of the Vessel’s acceptable loading speeds. Read full article...

In this time-charter contract, the Charterer commissioned the Owner’s Vessel because of its deck heater capability, which was necessary for the contracted cargo. However, the Vessel needed to undergo deck heater repairs and subsequently forced the Charterer to use a different vessel. Afterwards, the Charterer began arbitration to recover damages from the Vessel’s untendered voyage and contract breaches. Read full article...

This arbitration from a Contract of Affreightment encompasses four separate disputes pertinent to COA legislation. Owner failure to inform Charterers of ETA changes, proper withdrawal of a notice of repudiation, the number of voyages contracted in a COA, and freight difference for substitute vessels are all discussed in the proceedings. Read full article...

After repeated incidents of Vessel-caused cargo contamination, few valued shippers would subcharter the Vessel. The Charterers then began arbitration in order to terminate the long-term time charter with the Vessel on the grounds that the Vessel was consistently unseaworthy. The Owners argued that the only response to nonperformance is the off-hire clause, not cancellation. Read full article...

Throughout the life of the time charter contract, the Vessel had experienced extensive engine problems which rendered the Vessel off-hire on several occasions. The Charterers billed the Owners for the off-hire time and claimed that the delays were because of Vessel unseaworthiness. The Owners, on the other hand, blame the Charterer-supplied, low-grade bunkers for the engine trouble. Read full article...

After transporting several dirty cargos as instructed in the COA, the Charterer ordered the OBO Vessel to load a “sweet” cargo. The Vessel began loading, but when foot samples were taken, the freight was noticeably contaminated. At arbitration, the Owners claim that the Charterers had no proof of Vessel-caused contamination due to lack of shore samples and unreliable analysis reports. Read full article...

The Vessel arrived at loadport, tendered NOR, and passed inspection. But due to fog and lock outages, the Charterers declared force majeure (“unexpected event that can excuse a party from a contract”) and told the Owner that the cargo’s arrival would be delayed. The Owners subsequently filed for demurrage arguing that the Charterers failed to provide a timely notice of such delays. Read full article...

When the Vessel arrived at loadport, the port’s national government halted all oil exports because of United Nations pricing disputes. The Owner filed a demurrage claim for the berthing delay incurred by this embargo citing that the cargo must conform at all times with UN standards. The Charterers counterclaim that the oil suspension should be seen as a “restraint of prices,” which the charter views as billable. Read full article...

Upon the Vessel berthing at loadport, the Owners received a message stating that the Charterers could not supply the contracted cargo. The Owners subsequently filed a claim for detention, port expenses, and loss on mitigation voyage. Read full article...

Because the Vessel berthed at loadport with over 2000 bbls of residual LSWR (previous cargo), the Charterer refused Vessel loading and ordered extensive tank cleaning. The Owners submitted demurrage for the cleaning delay because they argue that the tanks met the contracted cleaning stipulations, while the Charterers counterclaim for the cleaning costs maintaining that the excessive residue rendered the Vessel unready to load. Read full article...