Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
Narval Chartering and Trading v Ameropa North America (The “M/V Ida”) – SMA No. 4276, 22 Mar 2016
COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME - WHETHER SHINC TERM TRUMPS OFFICE HOURS - DESPATCH
After NOR was tendered and loading commenced on a Sunday, the Owner and Charterer disputed when laytime commenced. Owner noted the laytime allowance referenced “shinc” allowing for laytime to commence on Sunday whereas charterer noted NOR was only to be tendered Monday through Friday.
Integr8 Fuels, Inc. v. Mediterranean Car Carriers Line SA – SMA No. 4275, 24 Nov 2015
PAYMENT FOR BUNKERS DELAYED - INTEREST ACCRUES AND IS ITSELF NOT PAID
When bunkers were not paid for in a timely manner, interest accrued per seller’s terms. And although the vessel owner eventually paid for the bunkers, the interest remained outstanding.
HPL Shipping Co. Ltd v Siderar, S.A.I.C. (The “MV Harvest Plains”) – SMA No. 4272 – 18 Feb 2016
PORT VS. BERTH CHARTER - RIVER PORT - WHEN VESSEL CONSIDERED ARRIVED - COAST GUARD RESTRICTING TRAFFIC - COLLISION - DEMURRAGE - LAYTIME
Upon arrival in Argentina the vessel could not proceed to charterer’s port due to wreckage salvage operations taking place on the Paraná River. Owner started counting laytime basis a notice of readiness tendered outside the commercial confines of charterer’s port; the sole disport named in the fixture. Contending that the charter party was a berth charter, Charterer disputed the time at which the vessel was to be considered an arrived ship.
SMA No. 4273, Team Tankers As v Vinmar International Limited, “Siteam Adventurer”, November 18, 2014
ASBATANKVOY - ADVERSE WEATHER OR NIGHTTIME TRANSIT RESTRICTION – DEMURRAGE CLAIM SHORT PAID WITHOUT OWNER’S AGREEMENT - Owner Award
Charterer and owner disagreed as to whether the root cause of a delay was a nighttime transit restriction or weather related subsequently warranting a 100% or 50% deduction respectfully. Charterer ended up short paying the owner’s claim and considering the case closed. The owner brought arbitration for the remainder.
Five Navigation Co. LLC and Apex Bulk Carriers LLC v. Monjasa A/S and Monjasa Inc. (The “Quinn J”) – SMA No. 4271
BUNKER SUPPLY CONTRACT – INCORRECT SULPHUR CONTENT PROVIDED – VESSEL DETOURED TO ACQUIRE PROPER FUEL – WHETHER BUNKER SUPPLIER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES – UCC VERSUS U.S. MARITIME LAW - WORKMANLIKE WARRANTY - Owner Award
The owner negotiated a contract for low sulphur fuel oil to be loaded at an agreed upon location. However the incorrect bunker fuel was supplied, preventing the vessel from traveling to a port on the voyage route. An alternate location was then chosen and the appropriate fuel was loaded. After the operation was conducted, the owners submitted a claim for damages against the bunker supplier.
OOCL (USA) Corp. v. Transco Shipping Corp. – ET UNO AMC 903, 11 Mar 2015
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CONSIGNEE’S LIABILITY TO CARRIER FOR DEMURRAGE/DETENTION AS SIGNER OF BILLS OF LADING – NOTIFY PARTY – ENDORSEMENT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – ACCOUNT STATED – Plaintiff Award The consignee failed to unload cargo from the vessel as the third party buyer was no longer in business. The cargo remained on the vessel as demurrage and detention fees accumulated. This action was brought before the court by carrier in an attempt to recover those damages from consignee basis a breach of contract by consignee, an account stated, and unjust enrichment. his dispute arose at the...
Jenlor International LLC v. Agribusiness United DMCC (The “Iris Halo”) – SMA No. 4268, 12 Apr 2014
DISCHARGE ALLOCATION - SHORT LOADED CARGO - DRAFT SURVEYS - OWNER ACTING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHARTERER - DETENTION - DEMURRAGE
The cargo was loaded aboard the vessel according to Charterer’s orders and in line with the initial discharge allocation. However, the shore reading and multiple draft surveys indicated a loading figure 265 MT less than the aggregate B/L figures. After sailing the load port Charterer amended the discharge port rotation as well as the discharge allocation of the cargo onboard. And after completion of operations at the first discharge port Charterer’s receiver complained that the quantity received was short ~200MT and threatened legal action if the remainder was not provided. The vessel eventually obliged and sailed for her second discharge port wherein the same situation arose. The panel majority found the Owner’s actions to be acceptable with the third arbitrator dissenting.
Lord & Taylor LLC v. Zim Integrated Shipping Services Ltd. – 13 Civ. 3478, 10 Jun 2015
HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award
A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.