Tagged: Apr/Jun 2001

Chembulk Trading, Inc. v. Coscol Marine Corp. (The “Courier”) – SMA No. 3587, 7 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- PLATFORM -- MOORING -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- SHIFTING -- ARBITRATION -- Draw / Claim Offset The Vessel arrived at the nominated offshore discharge platform with insufficient equipment to secure the Vessel to the mooring system. The Charterers then redirected the Vessel to a shore berth and completed discharge without incident. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for the excess shifting time while the Charterers counterclaim for shore berth expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Fairfield Chemical Carriers, Inc. v. Sapi Spy, Italy (The “Khirurg Vishnevkiy”) – SMA No. 3595, 22 Feb 1999

VEGOILVOY -- DEADFREIGHT -- LAYTIME -- CARGO -- DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award Because of Charterer-incurred deadfreight, the Owners computed their laytime allowances based on the amount of cargo loaded. They argued that deadfreight is an element of damages that has no bearings on allowed laytime. The Charterers, on the other hand, contend that a fully loaded Vessel should be the basis for allowed laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gaschem Services GMBH & Co. v. Olin Corp. (The “Beatrice”) – SMA No. 3603, 31 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- CONTAMINATION -- INSPECTION -- TANK SAMPLE -- Charterer Award The Owners brought arbitration against the Charterers because of an alleged wrongful cancellation of the charter party. In this case, the Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of clean propylene oxide, but failed tank inspection multiple times at loadport. And after the Master did not offer any further cleaning, the Charterer rejected the Vessel and cancelled the charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.