Category: Archive

This category can only be viewed by members. To view this category, sign up by purchasing Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Alpaca Shipping Corp. v. Grupo Primex SA de CV (The “Artesia”) – SMA No. 3713, 21 Dec 2001

SHELLTIME 3 — ARBITRATION — BUNKER — TIME CHARTER — TIME-BAR — RECAP — Partial Owner Award

The primary dispute at arbitration was the proper assessment of bunker consumption and speed allowances in a time charter contract. Because the Vessel exceeded these recap minimums, the Owner demanded reimbursement. However, the Charterer argued that the claim was time-barred, but in response submitted a counterclaim for pumping deficiencies.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Manor Hardware, Inc. (The “New Endeavor”) – SMA No. 3721, 25 Feb 2002

ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEADFREIGHT — BROKER — CHARTER PARTY — VOYAGE — CARGO — Owner Award

When the Charterer cancelled the contract and refused to supply cargo on both the original and mitigated voyages, the Owner began arbitration in order to recover the resulting deadfreight damages. The Charterer blames the broker in constructing a contract outside of the Charterer’s instructions which absolves the Charterer from a binding agreement to supply cargo.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Octane Shipping, Ltd. v. Cross Caribbean Shipping Services, Ltd. (The “Caroline”) – SMA No. 3735, 30 Apr 2002

ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEMURRAGE — INVOICE — PRIMA FACIE — Owner Award

The Owners began arbitration to recover an outstanding demurrage claim after hearing no Charterer-reply to their invoices. The Owners based their claim as prima facie.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Stolt Tankers, Inc. v. Clarissa Shipping Co., Ltd. – (The “Lacerta”) – SMA No. 3703, 12 Sep 2001

SHELLTIME 3 — DISPORT — CARGO — CONTAMINATION — HOSE — PURGING — MANIFOLD — Charterer Award / Owner Award

At disport, the Vessel’s cargo was degraded because of contaminant residue in the Vessel’s portable hose. Although the Owner’s hose is the apparent source of the impurities, the Owner denies responsibility on the grounds that the contamination occurred after the cargo had left the Vessel’s manifold.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bayside Marine Inc. v. Global Petroleum Corp. (The “Mountain Lady”) – SMA No. 3704, 12 Sep 2001

ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEMURRAGE — PUMP WARRANTY — CANAL — Charterer Award

This arbitration dispute hinges on an Owner’s claim for pumping demurrage and detention from canal blockage by another vessel. In their defense, the Charterers claim that the Owner violated the contracted pump warranty and have no grounds for demurrage while also stating that the Owner should have been aware of possible delays in the Chelsea Street Bridge Safety Zone.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Cape Tankers, Inc. v. Adam Maritime Corp. (The “Cabo Tamar”) – SMA No. 3705, 24 Sep 2001

ASBATANKVOY — CARGO — ROB — TANK — ARBITRATION — WITHHELD FREIGHT — BURDEN OF PROOF — Charterer Award

After discharging, there was over 5000 bbls of unpumpable cargo remaining in Vessel tanks. The Owners began arbitration for withheld freight costs on the grounds that the Charterers told the Vessel to keep cargo as cool as possible, which inadvertently rendered it unpumpable. The Owners further claim that the burden to prove that the ROB was liquid and pumpable falls on the Charterers.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Stolt Tankers, Inc. v. Marcus Oil and Chemical (The “Red Sapphire”) – SMA No. 3682, 18 Apr 2001

ASBATANKVOY — DEADFREIGHT — DEMURRAGE — ARBITRATION — SHORTLOAD — Owner Award

Upon completing load operations, the Owners discovered that the Charterers shortloaded the Vessel by about 462 mt. The Owners subsequently began arbitration to recover the deadfreight damages and additional demurrage.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Nordstrom & Thulin AB v. Transcontinental Refining Corp. (The “Nord Baltic”) – SMA No. 3687, 18 May 2001

ASBATANKVOY — ARBITRATION — DEMURRAGE — LAYCAN — PUMP WARRANTY — DISPORT — PUMP LOGS — MANIFOLD — Owner Award

This arbitration began as a result of the Charterer’s refusal to pay demurrage for an extended laycan at discharge. The Charterer claims that the Vessel violated the pump warranty, and therefore, excess time at disport is for the Owner’s account. The Owners counterclaim that the pumping logs are consistent with the warranty and that the dock’s inferior manifold connections were the cause of delay.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Windsor Chemicals, Inc. (The “Bow Spring”) – SMA No. 3693, 15 Jun 2001

ASBATANKVOY — DEMURRAGE — PART CARGO — VOYAGE — ARBITRATION — Owner Award

After a timely demurrage claim was made for a part cargo voyage, the Charterer did not respond to any Owner request for payment. After three years of non-compliance, the Owner reevaluated the claim to include interest and began arbitration.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Ocean Marine Transportation, Ltd. v. Chembulk Trading, Inc. (The “Chembulk Vancouver”) – SMA No. 3699, 8 Aug 2001

ASBATANKVOY — VOYAGE — BERTH — DISPORT — LOADPORT — CARGO — TRANSSHIP — Owner Award

Because the previous voyage’s berth to disport was clogged by a state-owned vessel, the Vessel had an estimated loadport ETA outside of the demands of the Charterers’ cargo interest. So, a new agreement was made where the Vessel would temporarily abandon her current voyage, load the Charterers’ cargo, and transship the previous cargo later. The Vessel sailed to loadport, however was notified by her previous Charterer that transshipment would not be allowed, which forced the Charterers to renegotiate their sales contracts.

To access this post, you must purchase Annual Subscription or 2 Year Subscription.