Tagged: Apr/Jun 2002

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 content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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 content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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 content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

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 content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.