Category: U.S. Maritime Cases

Buenamar Compania Naviera, SA v Panatlantic Bulk Carriers, Inc. – SMA 1339, 9 Jun 1979

BALTIMORE BERTH GRAIN FORM - DEVIATION - LATE LOAD PORT NOMINATION - DEADFREIGHT - LT ALLOWANCE - ALWAYS AFLOAT Several disputes arose between an owner and charterer concerning a cargo delivery that took place from Texas to Columbia. This included a deviation claim arising from a late port nomination and a short load due to draft at the public elevator. The owner had attempted to prevent the issue by requesting a change in load port rotation, but this never came to fruition. The owner contended that the charterer failed to provide a berth whereat the vessel could load always afloat, and charged deadfreight for the unloaded quantity. A dispute also arose over whether laytime allowance should be received were deadfreight to be paid.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

ADM International SARL v Colbun S.A (The “MN Bulk Orion”) – SMA 4281, 30 Jun 2016

VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED PRIOR TO FREE PRATIQUE AND CUSTOMS CLEARANCE AND WITH STOWAWAYS ONBOARD - OWNER’S OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE PRESENCE OF STOWAWAYS - WHETHER PANAMA CANAL EXPENSES DUE TO OVERLOADING FOR OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S ACCOUNT Under a COA a vessel was nominated to carry coal from Colombia to Chile. Due to not yet having obtained free pratique and customs clearance, and whilst having stowaways onboard, Charterer argued that the NOR tendered at load was invalid. During transit to the disport the vessel was found in breach of Panama Canal draft restrictions and incurred unexpected expenses due to overloading which each party believes to be for the other party’s account.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Narval Chartering and Trading v Ameropa North America (The “M/V Ida”) – SMA No. 4276, 22 Mar 2016

COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME - WHETHER SHINC TERM TRUMPS OFFICE HOURS - DESPATCH After NOR was tendered and loading commenced on a Sunday, the Owner and Charterer disputed when laytime commenced. Owner noted the laytime allowance referenced “shinc” allowing for laytime to commence on Sunday whereas charterer noted NOR was only to be tendered Monday through Friday.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Integr8 Fuels, Inc. v. Mediterranean Car Carriers Line SA – SMA No. 4275, 24 Nov 2015

PAYMENT FOR BUNKERS DELAYED - INTEREST ACCRUES AND IS ITSELF NOT PAID When bunkers were not paid for in a timely manner, interest accrued per seller’s terms. And although the vessel owner eventually paid for the bunkers, the interest remained outstanding.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his dispute arose at the...
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.