Tagged: Apr/Jun 2012

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Seadancer, SMA No. 4131

ASBATANKVOY -- FLOATING STORAGE -- DELAYS CAUSING OWNER’S FOLLOW-ON FIXTURE TO BE CANCELLED -- DETENTION -- LOST PROFITS -- FORESEEABILITY -- Charterer Award Under a voyage charter, wherein the clause allowing Charterer the option of using Vessel as floating storage had been deleted, Vessel was delayed at disport causing the subsequent fixture between Owner and another charterer, made at the peak of the market, to be cancelled. Owner claimed for damages in the form of profits lost from the cancelled fixture.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Seaarland Shipping Management BV v. Standard Tankers Bahamas Ltd. (The “Elisewin”) – SMA No. 4137, 21 Jun 2011

EXXONMOBIL VOY 2005 -- "NIGERIAN 8:00 A.M. RULE" -- DELAYS DUE MASTER’S REFUSAL TO SIGN BACKDATED BILL OF LADING (B/L) -- Charterer Award When Vessel concluded loading prior to 8 a.m. on the first day of the month, Charterer requested Master to sign a backdated B/L allegedly in accordance with Nigerian law and also allegedly a requirement of Clause 27 (a) of Part II of ExxonMobilvoy 2005. When Master refused to sign without a Letter of Indemnity Vessel was delayed in departing for six days for which Charterer refused to pay demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Citgo Petroleum Corp. v. Pulot Enterprises, Inc. (The “Stinice”) – SMA No. 4139, 5 Aug 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- CLAUSE PARAMOUNT -- COGSA -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award When cargo was found to be contaminated onboard the vessel at the discharge port, Charterer argued that COGSA applied and subsequently attempted to show that the cargo was loaded onboard the Vessel in good condition and discharged in a damaged condition.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Gretchen Shipping Inc. v. Commodities & Minerals Enterprises, Ltd. (The “Christoffer Oldendorf” renamed “General Piar”) – SMA No. 4140, 16 Aug 2011

BALTIME 1939 -- MASTER OVERWRITING FIGURES ON DEPARTURE DOCUMENTS -- DEPARTURE DELAY WHILE AGENT PREPARES NEW DOCUMENTS -- OFF-HIRE -- Charterer Award Upon completion of loading Master first refused to sign required departure documents before striking through figures and writing in what he considered to be the correct amounts. There was subsequently a 24-hour delay whilst new documents were prepared which the Master signed as presented with his disagreements noted on the bottom. Against Owner’s wishes, Charterer subsequently deducted the 24-hour period from money owed for bunkers.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Precious Stars Ltd. v. Helena Chartering Inc. and STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd. (The “Suchada Naree”) – SMA No. 4143, 29 Aug 2011

NYPE 93 -- OFF-HIRE -- EARLY REDELIVERY AND BUNKER LIABILITY -- MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES -- Partial Owner Award This arbitration dealt with a number of issues under a time charter. Namely, when does hire resume after an off-hire period for drydocking, early redelivery by Charterer, responsibility for bunkers consumed after early redelivery, an alleged off-hire period whilst the Vessel’s cranes were inoperable and finally, the distribution of numerous charges incurred during the time charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Westport Petroleum Inc. v. Kythrea Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “LMZ Artemis”) – SMA No. 4144, 2 Sep 2011

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- DELAYED DISCHARGE DUE HIGH HYDROGEN SULFIDE (H2S) VAPORS -- COGSA -- HEATING AND PURGING COSTS -- LOST PROFITS ON MISSED VOYAGE -- Partial Owner Award When a prior cargo apparently contaminated Charterer’s cargo, Charterer claimed for the cost needed to decontaminate it. Owner in turn denied Charterer’s claim and claimed demurrage incurred whilst Charterer was treating the cargo, heating and purging costs and lost profits when a subsequent fixture was cancelled as a result of the delayed discharge.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 10/11

WORLDSCALE -- PORT EXPENSES -- AMOCO CLAIMS CLAUSE -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award When Charterer directed the Vessel to a port which did not have an established Worldscale (WS) rate, Charterer advised Owner that port expenses would be for Charterer's account. When Owner's claim for port expenses arrived 155 days after discharge, Charterer rejected the claim stating it was barred under the Amoco Claims Clause.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 12/11

BALTIME 1939 -- NON-PAYMENT OF HIRE AND BUNKERS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- QUANTUM MERUIT FOR COMPLETION OF VOYAGE -- Owner Award When Charterer failed to pay three installments of hire, other expenses and arrange and pay for bunkers under a time charter contract, Owner first informed Charterer that they were suspending performance of the charter until outstanding hire was paid and then three days later, informed Charterer that they accepted Charterer's repudiatory breach. At the time of the repudiatory breach the Vessel was at sea en-route to the disport and in fact Vessel continued on to the disport and discharged Charterer's cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Star Reefers Pool Inc v JFC Group Co Ltd

BALTIME 1939 -- VESSEL BREAKDOWN -- WRONGFUL TERMINATION -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award When Charterer emailed Owner that Owner had committed breaches of two time charter parties amounting to repudiations and that the two charter parties were terminated, Owner responded by stating Charterer's email was itself a repudiatory breach and that the charter parties were thusly terminated. Owner claimed damages in the form of lost profits due to early redelivery, unpaid hire and fees, detention at the disport and the cost incurred when containers were left on board one of the vessels at redelivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Thai Mapar Trading Co. Ltd. v. Louis Dreyfus Commodities Asia Pte. Ltd. – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 4 Oct 2011

GAFTA FORM 120 -- FOB SALE -- INSUFFICIENT ETA NOTICE -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Buyer Award When the FOB Buyer failed to nominate the vessel at least 7 working days prior to vessel's ETA, Seller rejected the nomination. Despite non-conformity with the contract’s ETA requirement, this was not a sufficient basis for Seller to repudiate the contract.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.