Author: Brendan Hoffman

DISPONENT OWNER CLAIMING DAMAGES FROM SHIPPER - IDENTIFICATION OF CARRIER UNDER COGEN FORM BILL OF LADING - DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- IMPLIED CONTRACTS After loading a bulk cargo shipper ran into difficulties with its sales contract which the FOB buyer / charterer ultimately repudiated. At the request of the shipper the vessel was detained and waited at the load port until she eventually discharged the cargo on instruction from a local court. The disponent owner claimed damages from the shipper stating that under the bill of lading the disponent owner was the carrier. The shipper, i.e. seller under FOB terms, denied the basis of owner’s claims with the implication being that the shipper’s contract was not with the disponent owner and thus no arbitration clause existed between the disponent owner and shipper.

LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.

SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE - IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.

VESSEL DAMAGED BY STEVEDORES – WHETHER 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED BY OWNER – COMPETING CLAUSES WITHIN FIXTURE - Owner Award The vessel sustained damage during the loading and discharging of a cargo of logs Owner requested that the charterer pay for the repairs per 2 clauses included in the charter party. However, relying upon a 3rd clause Charterers believed owner was required to provide notice within 24 hours of the damage and thus refused to pay.