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.
NORGRAIN 1973 - FIRE - NORGRAIN EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE - IMPRACTICALITY - REPUDIATED / CANCELLED CHARTER PARTY Due to a cargo elevator, allegedly needed in order for a vessel to discharge bulk cargo, being unavailable due to fire, Charterer cancelled the charter party due to commercial impracticality and a clause in the C/P.
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.
AMWELSH - CANCELLED / REPUDIATED CHARTER PARTY - MITIGATED LOSSES - BALLAST VOYAGE - SUBSTITUTE EMPLOYMENT - POSITIONING VOYAGE Upon cancelling the charter party during loading Charterer instructed Owner to mitigate losses by seeking other cargos. Owner repositioned the original vessel and had a sister ship sail a ballast voyage to the delivery location of the follow on time charter of the original ship. Owner claimed for lost income and bunker costs due to repositioning.
ASBATANKVOY - COLLISION - ALLISION - SHIP TO SHIP (STS) - SAFE BERTHING / SHIFTING - GENERAL EXCEPTIONS - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE - SEAWORTHY - INCOMPETENCE - LANGUAGE BARRIER - DEMURRAGE - DAMAGES Prior to a Ship to Ship Transfer a supply boat collided with the tanker (“Agathonissos”) it was sent to support. The Agathonissos subsequently was delayed in lightering the vessel to be lightered (VTBL) which, being needed elsewhere, lightered to a replacement lightering tanker. The replacement lightering tanker eventually lightering to the Agathonissos after the Agathonissos was repaired. The owner of the Agathonissos alleged the supply vessel was unseaworthy due to its crew and held the Agathonissos’s charterer liable. The charterer alleged the same of the Agathonissos. Charterer also attempted to rely upon clauses 6 and 7 of ASBATANKVOY to deduct time from counting. Owner pointed to two clauses in the C/P, Clauses 9 and 19 of ASBATANKVOY, within which the charterer assumes the risk and peril of a lightering and neither party is to be held liable under certain circumstances.
DETENTION - REPUDIATED CHARTER PARTY - DEADFREIGHT - HULL CLEANING - MITIGATED DAMAGES After awaiting several weeks for cargo, the charter party was repudiated and the owner fixed mitigating voyages. Owner claimed for detention, deadfreight, and hull cleaning expenses.
EXXONMOBILVOY2005 - DEMURRAGE - DELAY DUE TO FOG - WHETHER GALENA PARK A PORT OR IN THE PORT OF HOUSTON - WHETHER HOUSTON SHIP CHANNEL A RIVERPORT - RIVERPORT CLAUSE - DISPUTE OVER BURDEN OF PROOF - Charterer Award When charterer deducted fifty percent of a delay due to fog basis an exceptions clause, owner countered that the Houston Ship Channel was a riverport and thus the “Riverport(s) Clause” applied with the weather delay subsequently counting in full. In addressing this question, the Panel also advised as to where the burden of proof would lie and whether Galena Park was a port.
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.