SALE OF GOODS (CFR) - DEMURRAGE - TIMELY PAYMENT OF FREIGHT - OBLIGATIONS UNDER SALES CONTRACT VS UNDER CHARTERPARTY - OWNERS REFUSING TO RELEASE BILLS OF LADING UNTIL FREIGHT PAYMENT The CFR Sellers brought arbitration against their Buyers in order to indemnify themselves for demurrage caused by the Buyers delaying payment of the Owner’s freight. Sellers argued that it was the Buyer’s responsibility to pay freight promptly under the contract. The Buyers countered that the obligation to pay freight accrued under the Seller’s charterparty, and therefore it was the Seller’s responsibility.
VOYAGE CHARTER - DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – VALID NOTICE OF READINESS – FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO Charterer cancelled a voyage charter party after failing to provide cargo. Owner claimed demurrage and damages from the alleged repudiatory breach. Charterer countered that the claim was time barred, the Vessel’s NOR was invalid, and the damages if awarded, should be basis the C/P’s lowest freight option.
PARTIAL FINAL AWARD - ARREST AND ATTACHMENT OF VESSEL - MARITIME LIEN - DEFAULT IN HIRE - UNSEAWORTHY The vessel was denied entry into a prior port for other charterers’ accounts which subsequently delayed her arrival at charterer’s disport. The panel was tasked to determine the party at fault for the delay and whether demurrage and other damages for barges awaiting the vessel at charterer’s disport for transshipment purposes were to be considered as consequential.
TIME CHARTER - VESSEL’S CONDITION UPON REDELIVERY - BREACH OF CHARTER When Charterer sat the Vessel at an equatorial port for 35 days, the Owner claimed underperformance damages incurred under a subsequent fixture and the cost to clean the hull.
DEMURRAGE - OIL SPILL - FORCE MAJEURE - PROCEED THERETO - REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL - ARREST OR RESTRAINT OF PRINCES - BPVOY3 Before the vessel’s arrival at port, a vessel at the vessel’s intended berth had an oil spill which delayed the vessel once she arrived at the port. Charterer argued to split the delay 50/50 wherein owner stated that BPVOY3’s “proceed thereto” was to be read as “reachable on arrival”, the spill was not an exception, and the prior vessel’s arrest was not an “arrest or restraint of princes, rulers or people”.
DEMURRAGE - TIME BAR - ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS - PRIMA FACIE - ASBATANKVOY When owner’s claim for demurrage did not include all supporting documents, charterer time barred it.
ENGINE BREAKDOWN - TYPHOON - SEAWORTHINESS - GENERAL AVERAGE - REASONABLE EXPENDITURES After suffering an engine breakdown, the shipowner employed a tug to avoid a typhoon and to bring the vessel to port. The owner then brought claim against the insurance company for general average contribution. The defendant argued that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage and that the casualty was caused by actionable fault of the Owner and thus no contribution was due. Further, the defendant argued that owner’s expenditure as claimed under general average was unreasonable.
NYPE - NON PAYMENT OF HIRE - PREMATURE WITHDRAWAL BY OWNER - REPUDIATORY BREACH - BALANCE OF HIRE - ADDITIONAL HIRE After charterer missed making hire payments, the owner informed charterer of its “rights” under the C/P. When no payments were made by the 3rd day after its notice, owner withdrew the vessel. Charterer pointed to a clause in the C/P requiring owner give “3 clear banking days notice” prior to withdrawal. Charterer claimed the balance of hire and owner claimed additional hire.
CARGO SHORTAGE - OWNER PROACTIVELY SETTLED WITH CHARTERER’S RECEIVER - CHARTERER INDEMNIFY OWNER - NON REVERSIBLE - DEMURRAGE After discharging, the receiver claimed a cargo shortage and detained the vessel. The shipowner settled the receiver’s claim in order to allow the vessel to depart the disport and in turn claimed reimbursement from the charterer. Owner also claimed demurrage incurred at the disport despite laytime being saved at load given that the laytime was non-reversible.
TIME CHARTER - SAFE PORT - CLAIM AGAINST DEMISE CHARTERERS - LIMITED LIABILITY When a ship sank upon departing a port in a storm, the court was tasked with answering 3 questions. 1) Was there a breach of the safe port warranty? 2) If so, did provisions for joint insurance preclude owner from the right to recover losses covered by hull insurers? 3) If there was a breach, are losses by a sub-charterer limited to the losses incurred by it’s owner to head owner’s insurance company.