TIME CHARTER – ANTICIPATORY BREACH – DAMAGES – VESSEL REDELIVERED EARLY – VALUE OF VESSEL SOLD AT REPUDIATION GREATER THAN VALUE OF VESSEL AT CONTRACTUAL DATE OF REDELIVERY Under a time charter, Charterer redelivered the Vessel to the Owner two years early. In doing so, Owner considered Charterer in anticipatory repudiatory breach of the contract and filed for damages. Charterer, however, pointed out that the early redelivery allowed Owner to sell the Vessel at a much higher price before the market collapsed. They argued that this windfall should be factored into the Owner’s damages claim. This is an appeal of...
ERS – BILL OF LADING – CARGO DISCHARGE TO WRONG RECEIVER After 69 uneventful deliveries, the 70th delivery was misappropriated when delivering against an electronic release system (ERS) rather than in exchange for a B/L or Delivery Order. fter 69 deliveries, discharge of the 70th shipment saw 2 of 3 containers misappropriated. Glencore claimed damages against MSC for breach of contract, bailment and conversion when MSC delivered the cargo without requiring the B/L or a Delivery Order in exchange for it. The B/L provided, “If this is a negotiable (To Order/of) Bill of Lading, one original Bill of Lading, duly...
SHELLTIME 4 - EARLY REDELIVERY - RENUNCIATORY / REPUDIATORY BREACH - DAMAGES Charterer’s daily hire payments were delayed or missed. Then, when Charterer told Owner via email that it would like to cancel the Charter Party, Owner accepted Charterer’s alleged repudiatory breach and claimed for damages. Charterer disputed damages were due.
TIME CHARTER – OFF-HIRE FOR CLEANING OF HOLDS AFTER DISCHARGE – PROLONGED PORT STAY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION When charterer’s cargo got wet and was compacted during discharge, extensive cleaning of the holds was required. During the cleaning, 2 cleaning machines were damaged. Charterer disputed the time spent cleaning and the cost to repair the damaged machines. Further, charterer claimed underperformance which owner disputed on the basis that it resulted from the extensive stay in warm waters whilst cleaning. he following arbitral proceedings arose from the carriage of sulphur out of Ust-Luga, Russia under an amended NYPE form charter party...
STEMMOR 83 - VOYAGE CHARTER - ACCORD AND SATISFACTION - DETENTION - CUSTOMARY ANCHORAGE - NOR VALIDITY - MARKET RATE VS DEMURRAGE RATE - BUNKER COSTS When charterer directed the vessel to cease loading, as she had originally been directed not to start loading until directed by charterer, additional expenses were incurred by owner which owner claimed from charterer. Then, at the disport the vessel was directed to wait outside the port and not tender NOR till directed. Owner subsequently claimed this delay as damages rather than as demurrage and at a rate higher than the demurrage rate.
SALES CONTRACT - RENUNCIATORY BREACH - FAILURE TO NOMINATE VESSEL - OBLIGATION TO DELIVER When FOB seller indicated an inability to provide cargo, buyer did not nominate a vessel and later, formally accepted seller’s breach. Seller claimed the non-nomination was an oversight which alleviated it from having to provide the cargo. Damages claimed by Buyer were basis losses calculated by reference to hedging or alternatively, market value.
TIME CHARTER - FAILURE TO PAY HIRE - ORDER FOR SALE OF CARGO When the vessel was sat by charterer for an extensive period of time with late or non-payment of hire, the Court was tasked with determining whether they had the power to implement an order for the sale of charterer’s cargo and whether they should.
TIME CHARTER - NYPE - DURATION - OPTION TO EXTEND Basis verbiage in a pro forma recap, charterer argued for a 15 days extension of the time charter. Owner disagreed that an extension was due, pointing to the ultimate recap which did not reference the extension.
CHARTERPARTY – EXTENSIVE DELAY AT DISPORT - ESCALATION FROM DEMURRAGE RATE TO DETENTION RATE – BUNKER COST - WAITING TIME – FLOATING STORAGE The vessel tendered its NOR upon arrival at the disport and after no further instructions were given by Charterer she waited 64 days before discharging. Owner claimed Charterer used the vessel as floating storage and applied a clause in the C/P enabling demurrage to be charged at an escalating rate. Charterer countered by stating the 64 days were to be charged as ordinary laytime and demurrage.
CLAIM FOR DETENTION - ASSESSMENT OF ACTUAL LOSS - WHETHER DEMURRAGE RATE USED FOR CALCULATION OF DAMAGES TO BE GROSS OR NET OF COMMISSION After sitting at the agreed upon discharge port for an extended period charterer directed the vessel to a disport not included in the fixture recap. Upon the ultimate completion of discharge owner presented charterer with a claim for detention which utilized the agreed demurrage rate. The panel would be tasked at both determining the validity of the claim and the appropriate rate to be used.