Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
GENCON - NO LAYCAN - CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT- FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER PRE-PAID FREIGHT TO BE REFUNDED- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARBITRATORS’ ORDERS- Owner Award
Charterer and Disponent Owner agreed to transport cows from northeastern US to Turkey under a consecutive voyage charter. Before the recognized load date for the first voyage Charterer requested extensions and ultimately cancelled the charter due to a fire at the receiving facility and the Syrian civil war which saw fighting on Turkey’s border with Syria. Charterer sought to recover $600k in pre-paid freight from Owner with Owner rejecting Charterer’s claim and countering for unpaid freight and lost profit on the unperformed voyages.
ASBATANKVOY – STS TRANSFER - CONTAMINATED CARGO – HAGUE VISBY & COGSA - BURDEN OF PROOF – DEMURRAGE - FAULT OF THE VESSEL - TIME-BAR – Charterer Award
The vessel was loading LPG via a ship-to-ship transfer when it was discovered that the cargo she had loaded was contaminated by moisture. Both the charterer and the owner held each other responsible for the burden of proof. The dispute was over who was liable for the damages due to the contamination and if demurrage, detention and deviation were to be incurred. And if incurred, whether owner’s claims for same were time-barred.
CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award
Charterer claimed owner’s dry docking of the Vessel without obtaining mutual agreement for same equated to a material and repudiatory breach of the contract and subsequently refused to provide a cargo or assurances for the continuance of the charter. After waiting 66 days for the cargo and assurances owner canceled the charter and claimed for damages.
VOYAGE CHARTER – BALTIC 99 INCORRECT IN REGARDS TO CRANE TYPE – REDUCED LOAD RATE – Owner Award
At the time of fixture, the type of crane listed on the Baltic 99 form was incorrect. Charterer claimed the decision to conduct the fixture was based on the listed crane and adjusted the load and discharge rate upon which the allowed laytime was calculated based on what they believed the actual crane could handle. Owner disagreed with this change and brought the case to arbitration.
PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD – CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award
Owner petitioned to confirm an earlier arbitration award in which the arbitrators held that the Charterer had breached the Charter by not providing cargo for the Vessel. Charterer argued that the arbitrators had acted with complete disregard of past precedent in assessing damages against them and filed a cross-motion to vacate the award.
INTEREST ON OUTSTANDING DEMURRAGE- REBILLING COUNTERPARTIES- DELAYED PAYMENTS
Outstanding demurrage claims were not paid to the owner due to economic hardship itself caused by non-payment by charterer’s suppliers. Charterer did not deny the validity of the claims yet objected to being charged interest as same was not allowed for within the charter parties.
ASBATANKVOY – PARTIAL FINAL AWARD – PARTIAL DEMURRAGE COLLECTION -- DELAYS AT OTHER PORTS EXTENDING FROM COLLISION AND REPAIRS – Owner Award
Due to a collision in port Owner was required to repair the Vessel. Because of the delay the Owners contended that they should receive partial demurrage payment for the period after the collision. Charterer believed that a full hearing covering the entire voyage should be concluded before judgement can be passed on the demurrage from any single part of the voyage.
CHARTER PARTY – CANCELED – MAJOR ISSUES DURING LOADING – VESSEL BANNED FROM TERMINAL – VESSEL UNABLE TO FULLY LOAD CARGO – Charterer Award
Because of multiple terminal compliance issues the vessel was banned from berthing to load its cargo at the terminal. The charterers then canceled the charter party. Owners contended that the cancellation was invalid.
ASBATANKVOY -- DAMAGES -- COGSA -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PRE-SHIPMENT CONDITION -- OWNER’S DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Upon arrival at the discharge port, the Vessel’s onboard cargo was found to be off-spec. The Charterer concluded that the Vessel had caused the contamination and submitted a damages claim. Owner rejected the claim stating that their Vessel had met the cleaning requirements set forth by the Charterer’s surveyors at the load port and submitted a counterclaim for demurrage.
CONTAINER DEMURRAGE -- DOCTRINE OF LACHES -- STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS -- DELAYED PROCEEDINGS -- INTEREST CALCULATION -- Plaintiff Award
The Claimant’s container sat at the discharge port for a period of 4 years. During that time they issued 13 demurrage claims contemporaneously to the Cargo Merchant for the container’s running delay. However, the Defendant never paid, so once the container was returned by Customs, the Claimant brought admiralty action against the Defendant to recover those outstanding funds. As this was several years after the voyage (and a number of these claims), the Merchant argued that these claims were barred by laches.
