Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
EXXONVOY 90 -- DISPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- PORT -- Charterer Award
While discharging at the first of two disports, the Vessel failed to meet the charter party’s pump warranty. After the voyage, the Owners presented an adjusted demurrage claim that excluded laytime while not meeting the pump warranty at the first port. The Charterers, however, argued that no laytime at discharge after breaching the warranty, including laytime at the second port, can be counted as demurrage.
WARSHIPOILVOY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- OFFSHORE STORAGE -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award
Because the cargo was contaminated, the Charterers used the Vessel as an offshore storage facility while filtering the cargo into a useful form. The Owners argue that contamination came from the loadport’s inferior steel railcars, and therefore claim this extensive delay at disport as demurrage. The Charterers contended that the disport samples prove that the contamination occurred on the Vessel and counterclaimed for cargo damages.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- BROKER -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award
The Owners submitted a demurrage invoice within the 90-day time-bar, however, the Charterers contested its completeness upon submission. The Owners subsequently resubmitted the full claim to the broker on the last day of the time-bar, which they claim satisfies the charter party.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- HANDLING COSTS -- Owner Award
Because the cargo was found to be off spec at disport, the Charterers accepted a US$100,000 settlement for the contamination. In addition to the settlement, the Owners submitted a demurrage claim for additional laytime at disport. However, the Charterers counterclaimed for excess handling costs and rejected the Owner’s invoice based on the cargo contamination and the Vessel’s inoperative radar.
ASBA II -- DISPORT -- DRAFT -- BERTH -- SHIFT -- PORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
En route to the nominated disport, the Vessel Master deviated course due to draft restrictions that were deemed unsafe for berth. Eventually, the Master agreed to shift to the allegedly hazardous port with additional assistance and subsequently claimed demurrage for the delayed arrival. The Charterer refuted the claim on the grounds that both the Vessel’s arrival and departure from port were safe.
VEGOILVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TRANSSHIP -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- PART CARGO -- Charterer Award
In order to reduce their demurrage claim, the Charterer referenced the Owner’s transshipper’s Statement of Facts clause which states that demurrage would be apportioned between Charterers in the ratio of their part cargo onboard.
VEGOILVOY -- BERTH -- PART CARGO -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Upon arriving at the nominated Berth 2 for discharge, the Vessel was rejected at berth because of having a low flash part cargo for another Charterer. The Owners therefore deemed it unsafe and demanded another berth nomination. Conversely, the Charterer argued that the berth was safe and that it was the Owners’ responsibility to know their cargo’s compliance to the terminal’s regulations.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DETENTION -- CHARTER PARTY -- TIME CHARTERER -- VOYAGE -- LACHES -- TIME-BAR -- Partial Owner Award
The Owners began arbitration to recover detention damages from four separate charter parties that the Time Charterers had contracted. The Vessel was idle for extended periods between these voyages instead of being utilized. On the other hand, the Charterers rejected the claims basis laches and time-bar breaches.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- BERTH -- CHARTER PARTY -- VOYAGE -- Buyer Award
This arbitration centered upon two separate claims for demurrage. In the first case, the Buyer and Seller agreed that laytime would begin upon berthing if the Vessel was late. But because the Vessel did not arrive on time, it was given an unfavorable berth rotation with no Buyer repercussion, which the Sellers now claim as demurrage. The second dispute was over whether a legal charter party existed for the voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- TERMINAL -- LINE HANDLER -- STRIKE -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- Owner Award
The Vessel was unable to berth at the Charterers’ terminal because of a line handler strike. The Owners argued that delays should be held as demurrage because the Charterers did not supply a berth "reachable upon arrival." The Charterers challenged this claim by classifying the strike as a delay “…over which the Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.”
