Online Archive - Browsing 2004 article summaries

While loading other charterers’ cargo at the loadport, the Vessel tendered NOR for the Charterer’s ship-to-ship transfer. The Charterer’s coaster, however, waited until all other Vessel loading ceased before coming alongside the Vessel, causing an additional day of laytime. But at arbitration, the Charterer argued that the Vessel’s NOR was invalid because He/She claims that STS transfer could not begin while dock loading. Read full article...

Because of high winds pushing water out of the Houston Channel, the Vessel was unable to arrive at disport with its ordered draft. The Owners demanded that this extensive delay be paid in full by the Charterers, however, the Charterers cite the contract which stipulates that any delay due to adverse weather is paid at half the Demurrage Rate. Read full article...

In this case, the Vessel arrived at disport with 6H 48M of laytime left. But in addition to the little remaining laytime, the terminal’s restrictive discharge rate further increased the eventual demurrage claim. Read full article...

Before leaving berth at loadport, the voyage’s laytime had already expired and the Vessel was now on 5H demurrage. This claim continued to accumulate during the voyage, however after tendering NOR at disport, the Owner granted the Charterer 6H of unbilled time. Read full article...

This case is a Charterer re-petition to the panel to terminate the time charter contract with the Owner because of ongoing repairs that render the Vessel off-hire and because of new information indicating Owner financial difficulty. Read full article...

The seven Bill of Lading holders initiated arbitration for damages from cargo contamination and shortages upon discharge. The Owners claimed that the shortages were due to evaporation and trade allowances, while the Receivers argued that the Vessel unseaworthiness was prima facie. Read full article...

Because the Charterer’s Buyer instructed that Baltimore was the only feasible discharge port, the Charterer ordered the Vessel there despite recent port hazards. Once unloaded at disport, a damaged crane forced the Vessel to wait at berth for forty-six days. The Owners followed through with a detention claim arguing that the Charterers were aware of the anticipated delays and did not make a good faith effort to find another berth. Read full article...

Although the Vessel was twenty days late for delivery, the disagreement at arbitration was the correct rate for the Vessel after this delay. The Charterers refused to grant the Owners the new market rate and cite the Charter Party clause which states that the final voyage must be completed “at the same rate and conditions” as in the Charter. Read full article...

In this time charter voyage, the Charterers had credit owed to them by the Owner. But because a company tied to the Charterer is in debt to the Owner, the Owner refused to pay the Charterer and used the other claim as credit to offset the debt. Read full article...

During voyage, the Vessel collided with another tanker causing cargo loss and damages. The Charterer claimed compensation for said losses while Owner counterclaims for unpaid general average contributions under COGSA. Read full article...

The focal points of this arbitration are the outstanding demurrage bill and the costs to the Owner to collect demurrage. The Charterers blame the missed laycan on a previous voyage that had a delayed ETD from lack of port space and adverse weather. The Owners, however, argue that the Charterer did not cancel the contract, and therefore, the laycan remains in full effect. Read full article...

Owner began arbitration to recover an unpaid freight differential on a back-to-back charter agreement. The Charterer needed an Ecuadorian flag Vessel in order to discharge in the contracted Ecuadorian port and could only get around this by sub-chartering the Vessel to itself through this contract’s Owner. However, Charterer argues that Flopec was under no risk in the transaction and had no right to claim a freight differential. Read full article...

This case is a consolidation of four different outstanding Charterer invoices. After each voyage completion, the Owner would submit the required information in a timely manner, but the Charterer would not respond. Read full article...