Tagged: Vol. 2 No. 1

Chemteam Tankers v. Oxide Chemicals, Inc. (The “Infra”) – SMA No. 3105, 23 Sep 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award Due to a major Vessel casualty at disport, the Vessel was put on demurrage for an additional 1.5 days. The Charterers argued that this event was beyond their control and should be summarily discounted. The Owners, on the other hand, contend that the Charterers had not satisfied their burden of proof that it was indeed out of their control.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Exmar v. Scanports Shipping, Inc. (The “Cheshire”) – SMA No. 3123, 15 Nov 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CARGO -- CHILLING -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYCAN -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE After substituting the fixed Vessel for the slower-loading subject Vessel, further delays were incurred at loadport due to insufficient cargo chilling per charter requirements. The Owners argued that this extended laycan was faulted by the terminal’s breach of the charter party and claimed any excess loading time as demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Flota Petrola Ecuatoriana v. Adam Maritime Corp. (The “Trade Resolve”) – SMA No. 3125, 10 Oct 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- LIGHTERING -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- PORT -- ANCHORAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- BERTH -- DETENTION -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award The Charterer fully loaded the Vessel with the intention of lightering the cargo at disport. However, the Vessel remained at port anchorage for over sixteen days while discharging to lightering vessels. The Owner contended that the Charterer breached the charter party by not procuring a berth reachable upon arrival and therefore demanded damages at the detention rate instead of the demurrage rate.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Chemifalcon Shipping Co. v. Maravan S.A. (The “Chemifalcon”) – SMA No. 3128, 23 Nov 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- FOOT SAMPLE -- CHARTER PARTY -- REFINERY -- CONTAMINATION -- BALLAST -- SHIFT -- BERTH After the Vessel failed both a tank inspection and the first foot sample, the Charterers exercised their right to terminate the charter party. However, the Owners insisted on a second foot sample and blamed the first foot sample’s contamination on the Refinery Loading Master’s order to ballast the Vessel during the shift to berth.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bibby Tansport, Ltd. v. Chemical Trading, Inc. (The “Cheshire”) – SMA No. 3129, 5 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- VOYAGE -- PURGING -- DEMURRAGE -- MARITIME -- SHIFTING TIME -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. The responsibility for time spent purging the Vessel’s tanks, shifting time, cooling down time, and the application of the maritime maxim "once on demurrage, always on demurrage" are all discussed in the proceedings.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Arnada Tankers, Ltd. v. Delphi Petroleum, Inc. (The “Shoun Nectar”) – SMA No. 3133, 30 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- LAYTIME -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR -- SEAWORTHY -- CARGO -- SHIP LOG -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award This arbitration award covers several laytime issues between voyage parties. Pertinent issues include the time-bar clause, Owner’s diligence to provide a seaworthy Vessel, the Vessel’s minimum transit speed, the ship log of cargo temperature, daylight restrictions at the Charterer’s disport, and delays due to a census conducted by the disport’s national government.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

North Pacific Carriers, Ltd. v. AOT, Ltd. (The “Proteus”) – SMA No. 3136, 20 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY --PORT -- DISPORT -- TERMINAL -- DRAFT -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- LIGHTERING -- BARGE -- Owner Award Upon arrival at the Charterer’s nominated port, the Vessel was loaded beyond the disport terminal’s published draft. So because the berth was unreachable upon arrival, the Owner subsequently submitted a demurrage claim for the time spent awaiting the Charterer’s lightering barges. The Charterer, however, cited other instances where vessels with greater drafts had berthed safely at the terminal.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Seachem Tankers, Ltd. v. Oxyde Chemicals, Inc. (The “Peaceventure L.” and “Prideventure L.”) – SMA No. 3137, 21 Dec 1994

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- LAYTIME -- QUARANTINE -- CUSTOMS -- BERTH -- PORT -- Owner Award The arbitration proceedings encompass several points of contention during the voyage. Laytime disputes include laytime deductions for tank cleaning, laytime during quarantine and customs clearance, and daylight restrictions for berthing at port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.