ASBATANKVOY -- BARGE -- LOADPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- TERMINAL -- ARBITRATION -- ACT OF GOD -- DETENTION -- MITIGATE -- LATE CARGO -- BERTHING DELAY -- Owner Award After an initial barge loading failure at the original loadport, the Owner mitigated the Charterer’s demurrage and fixed the new loadport as the Owner’s terminal. The Vessel tendered NOR at the terminal, but was forced to wait three days for the Charterer’s barges to arrive because of rough seas and lock delays. The subsequent demurrage claim for the three day delay was refuted in arbitration by the Charterers on the grounds that the weather and lock detentions were out of their control, and therefore exempt from demurrage.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYTIME -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- STOWAGE -- LAYCAN -- DEADFREIGHT -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award During laytime, and after the Charterer’s cargo was partially loaded, the Charterer altered the agreed amount of cargo as specified by the Charter Party, thereby incurring stowage delays and confusion in the loading plan. After these delays extended loadtime past laycan, the Charterer cancelled the voyage and refused responsibility for the resulting deadfreight claiming that the delays resulted from the Vessel’s unreadiness to load.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- ARBITRATION -- PRORATE -- INCREASED DEMURRAGE INVOICE -- Owner Award In order to collect outstanding demurrage claims, the Owner started arbitration; however, originally, the claim was erroneously calculated with a lower prorated waiting time which the Owner raised at arbitration. The Charterers argued that they were exempt from this new rate because they believed it to be punitive and an alteration of the original contract.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CARGO -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- PREMATURE NOR -- DESPATCH -- CARGO LOSS -- SIMULTANEOUS CARGO HANDLING -- Owner Award This arbitration dispute centers around the finer responsibilities of the Owner to load with "utmost dispatch" and to load concurrently in cases of more than one cargo. However, if the Charterer sustains a loss from delayed loading, the burden to prove any such loss lies on the Charterers.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- LOADPORT -- TWO PORT LOAD -- ALL TANKS NOT READY AT FIRST PORT -- VALIDITY OF NOR -- Owner Award Fulfilling an option granted by the Charter Party, the Charterer added a second loadport to the voyage. But when the Vessel tendered NOR at the first loadport, the NOR was rejected because the Vessel’s tanks to be loaded at the second loadport were unclean. The Charterers argued that the NOR cannot be valid if the Vessel is not ready to load cargo in all respects (including subsequent port loading).
LAYCAN -- ACT OF GOD -- CONTRACT -- CARGO -- SHIPPING -- CIF PURCHASE CANCELLED DUE LATE LOAD -- VALIDITY OF ETA -- Buyer Award Although arriving promptly on the first day of laycan, bad weather kept the vessel from berthing for two weeks. Subsequently, the Buyer cancelled the contract arguing: that the Seller failed to ship the cargo within the shipping period, that the seller failed in His/Her obligation to ship the cargo expediently, and that the disport ETA’s were unrealistic in the context of Winter weather.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LAYTIME -- NOR -- APPEAL -- LOADING PRIOR TO LAYCAN -- Charterer Award Upon acknowledging that the Vessel would arrive before laycan, the Charterer sent several messages to the Vessel requesting that she tender NOR upon arrival with the intent of commencing loading prior to laycan; which she did. The Owner argued that this signified the commencement of laytime due to Charterer-given consent; however, the Charterer contends that they merely requested an early NOR.
Loading prior to the commencement of laydays can have many positive outcomes, not least of which is the expedited turn around of the voyage. However, this being said, there are pitfalls for which both Owners and Charterers should be aware of. Discussed below are two of them.