Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Navig8 Chemicals Asia Pte, Ltd. and Navig8 Chemicals Pool, Inc. v Crest Energy Partners LP (The “Songa Peace”) – SMA No. 4262, 11 Sep 2015

ASBATANKVOY - UNPAID DEMURRAGE - VESSEL IDLE FOR 20 DAYS - FORCE MAJEURE - REPUDIATED CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) - Owner Award The Charterer failed to pay demurrage on the first voyage of a two-voyage COA. On the second voyage, the Vessel sat for 20 days before the Charterer repudiated the contract by claiming force majeure because of “recent tropical storm activity” and the resulting high water content in the intended cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Batca Global AS v. Prams Water Shipping Co Inc – SMA No. 4264, 13 Nov 2015

GENCON - NO LAYCAN - CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT- FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER PRE-PAID FREIGHT TO BE REFUNDED- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARBITRATORS’ ORDERS- Owner Award Charterer and Disponent Owner agreed to transport cows from northeastern US to Turkey under a consecutive voyage charter. Before the recognized load date for the first voyage Charterer requested extensions and ultimately cancelled the charter due to a fire at the receiving facility and the Syrian civil war which saw fighting on Turkey’s border with Syria. Charterer sought to recover $600k in pre-paid freight from Owner with Owner rejecting Charterer’s claim and countering for unpaid freight and lost profit on the unperformed voyages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.