Online Archive - Browsing 2007 article summaries

After loading a clearly contaminated cargo, the Charterer and Owner disputed over whether the contamination should be mentioned in the Bill of Lading, which resulted in vessel delays at loadport. The Charterer believed that the contamination could be logged in the statement of facts and withheld the Letter of Indemnity until a clean B/L was issued. The Owner therefore blamed the delay on the Charterer. Read full article...

The Charterer began arbitration proceedings to recover losses from four issues that arose under a time charter contract; three are recapped. At arbitration, the Charterer argues that the repair work undertaken at anchorage constitutes an off-hire, that the lighterage charges resulting from an incorrect sailing draft should be due Owner, and that the detention time at disport was avoidable and faulted by the Owner. Read full article...

This arbitration award resolves three separate disputes which center upon the speed and consumption warranties provided within the time-charter contract. Without receiving substantiating performance reviews, the Charterer withheld varying freight amounts from voyages basis estimated values. The Owner, however, argued that they should be reimbursed for disputed claims raised by them before time-bar, for voyage over-performance, and because of unrepresentative assessment of vessel performance during short voyages. Read full article...

The Owner refused to nominate a vessel to lift the final COA cargo tonnage on the grounds that a third voyage in one month violated the contracted “fairly evenly spread” nomination requirement. The Charter subsequently had to load the remaining cargo at the substantially higher spot market rate and began arbitration to recover the resulting losses. Read full article...

In light of Owner violations to the voyage charter, the Charterer made an unauthorized deduction from Owner’s freight payment to compensate for damages incurred during voyage. At arbitration, the Owner believed that the withheld freight payment and the Charterer’s damages should be treated as separate issues. Read full article...

Because the Owner did not meet the pump warranty at disport, the Charterer rejected any excess pumping time billed to them by the Owner. The Owner argued that the terminal was incapable of receiving the cargo at the contracted rate and therefore made a reduced claim for pumping time basis the ASDEM Pumping Performance equation. Read full article...

At loadport, the Vessel could only safely load to a less-than-contracted draft level due to bad weather conditions and excess silting. The Owner demanded that the Charterer pay deadfreight for the voyage due to negligence in declaring a safe vessel berth. The Charterer, however, believed that it was the Owner’s responsibility to validate the port’s safety and that the contractual term “safe port” was not a warranty but a mutual agreement that the port was safe. Read full article...

Due to a crippling workers strike at disport, there was a discharge slow-down which thereby extended laytime beyond the allotted laycan for the Vessel. The Owners claimed this time as demurrage and argued that the Charterers had not satisfied their obligation to search for alternative means of discharge. On the other hand, the Charterers believed that the strike was out of their control, and therefore, exempt from demurrage fees. Read full article...

Upon the Vessel’s arrival at disport, the Charterers’ inspector rejected the Vessel due to excess rust and tank lining deterioration. The Vessel crew attempted to clean the tanks over laycan, but ultimately could not meet the inspector’s minimum standards, so the Charterers subsequently terminated the charter party. The Owners refuted the cancellation by claiming that the expected standards were unjust and began arbitration for losses. Read full article...

This arbitration began as a result of two disputed frame contract voyages between the same Buyer and Seller. The first dispute centered around a potential time-bar exception under the Limitations Act 1980 to the Buyer’s presented claim. The second dispute concerned contaminated cargo onboard the Vessel, the resulting demurrage at disport and the liability of such contamination and delays. Read full article...

Because the Receivers recently had their import license revoked, the Vessel was unable to discharge cargo at the nominated disport. The Owners responded by exercising their possessory lien on the cargo and ordered the Vessel to remain outside of port while concurrently accruing demurrage. The Owners began arbitration with the threat of charter party cancellation if the cargo was not received commercially acceptable time. Read full article...

The Owners began arbitration when the Time-Charterers returned the Vessel several years before the conclusion of their time charter period without reimbursement for the remainder of the charter. The Owners argued that the Time-Charterers were liable for the outstanding payment and demanded compensation. Conversely, the Time-Charterers cited a wartime exception clause which made them indebted only up to the Second Gulf War. Read full article...

Two separate demurrage issues arose over the course of the voyage. At loadport, the Vessel appeared to be fully loaded when, in fact, there was frozen ballast water remaining on board. The Charterers argued that the time spent waiting for the ice to thaw and loading recommencement should not count as used laytime. And the second arbitration issue concerned the Charterers’ belief that December 27 was a national holiday (and a laytime exception) at disport. Read full article...

Upon tendering NOR, the Count’s arrival to and departure from port was impeded by two separate occurrences of other vessels grounding in the channel. The issue at arbitration became whether the Charterers were accountable for damages from delays because of their failure in nominating a safe port or if the grounding of the other vessels truly influenced the safety of the Count’s berth. Read full article...

When the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Charterer refused to accept apparently contaminated cargo without the Owner’s security. In the initial contract, the Owner would be liable for the cargo if it became contaminated because of any breakdowns, but the Owner argued that the Charterer had no proof of any condition change in the cargo during voyage. Read full article...

This dispute arose from the Vessel having 1.06% less cargo at the discharge port than what was specified in the Bill of Lading. Referencing the “Cargo clingage” clause in the contract, the Charterers argued that any short cargo in excess of 0.5% shall be deducted from freight. However, the Owners counterclaimed that this clause deals only with cargo clingage and that the Vessel survey report did not mention any such clingage. Read full article...

At port, the Vessel failed to meet the 100 PSI pump warranty, which thereby faulted the Owners for subsequent delays. Because the 100 PSI limit was not reached, the Charterers argued that any time over 24H was delay time. The Owners, on the other hand, felt that this method did not accurately interpret the clause’s definition of true Vessel underperformance delays. Read full article...

Three days after laycan, the Charterers declared that the cargo transaction had failed and cancelled the charter. The Vessel sailed to fulfill other pre-existing contracts to seek lost profits. Read full article...

After arrival in the Mississippi River for discharge, the Vessel was subsequently ordered to sail to Houston for discharge in order to avoid a hurricane. At issue is the calculation of freight and deviation costs; whether Houston constituted the Charterer’s second discharge port option as per Charterer’s Diversion Clause or did the sole disport with the Mississippi River constitute a deviation. Read full article...

In this time-charter contract, the Vessel had under-consumed its allotted bunkers because of slow steaming. The difference in the allotted and actual consumption would be paid to the Owners; however, due to vague language in the charter, the amount of under-consumption was under dispute in arbitration. Read full article...

After the Vessel tendered NOR in the Port of New York, it took over 6H to grant free pratique—a violation to the BPVOY4’s Notice of Readiness Clause. However, the Port of New York does not formally endow free pratique, but instead views a tendered NOR as the beginning of laytime. Read full article...

This dispute arises out of the finer aspects of proper NOR declaration. In this case, the Vessel tendered NOR upon arriving at the disport’s entry buoy, which the Charterers refute as “customary anchorage.” If this is not considered “customary anchorage,” then the Vessel’s NOR cannot represent a valid laytime beginning. Read full article...

The arbitration following the Vessel’s voyage encompassed several key demurrage arguments. Disagreements centered on the validity of the Vessel’s NOR, the responsibility of the Charterer in supplying a safe berth “reachable on [the Vessel’s] arrival,” shifting delays, and ROB compensation. Read full article...

After the vessel had been loaded with separate cargo, the Charterer discovered that one of the cargos had been contaminated with another. The Owner claimed that the contamination was because of the terminal and refused to pay demurrage and shifting expenses. The Charterer counterclaimed for costs lost material costs arguing that the contamination resulted from tank seal defects. Read full article...

The original Charter Party contained no stipulation on laytime rates, so in order to incentivize payment, the Owners gave a gratis prorated cost for time at port. However, when the demurrage claim became outstanding, the Owners began arbitration and removed the original prorate and raised it to a desired level for the Owner. Read full article...