Tagged: Jan/Mar 2009

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4016, 25 Nov 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Mansel Oil Ltd. and Another v. Troon Storage Tankers SA (The “Ailsa Craig”) – EWHC 1269 (Comm. Ct.), 9 Jun 2008

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

P v A and Another – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 20 Jun 2008

AMERICANIZED WELSH COAL -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- LATE NOMINATION OF LAYDAYS -- REPUDIATORY BREACH -- Owner Award On the 5th lifting under a contract of affreightment (COA) covering six voyages, the Charterer nominated the layday spread but was subsequently unable to secure a cargo, and asked Owner to move the laydays back two weeks. Due to a rising freight market, Owner was unwilling to do so, but offered to simply cancel voyage #5 and lift the cargo as the last voyage under the fixture. At issue is whether the laydays were irrevocable even though Owner had not yet nominated a Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Mediterranean Salvage & Towing Ltd. v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc. (The “Reborn”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.) 1 Aug 2008

GENCON -- VESSEL DAMAGED WHILE BERTHING -- MULTIPLE BERTH CALLS IN PORT -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- Charterer Award If a specific port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed and there is no express "safety" warranty of either the port or the berth, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the Charterers must nominate a “safe” berth?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Statoil ASA v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The “Harriette N”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 29 Sep 2008

MEANING OF "ACCEPT / EXCEPT" -- TIME-BAR -- CALCULATION ERROR -- UNILATERAL MISTAKE -- Seller Award If a demurrage claim is paid, and later discovered to have contained an error, is there an obligation to pay the additional amount, even if the time bar has long since passed? When negotiating a contract, what is the meaning of the phrase "accept/except"?
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Piracy: Untested Waters?

Perhaps due to November’s capture by pirates of the Sirius Star, a fully laden VLCC captured some 500 nautical miles off the coast of Kenya, the fact that piracy has dramatically increased in the past year has finally entered the vernacular of the mainstream media spurring interest amongst those outside the maritime community.1 This interest has sparked many suggestions and opinions on how to stop piracy, some action towards that goal, concern over piracy’s human and economic costs and how to best resolve the tricky legal issues that can arise.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.