Tagged: Jul/Sep 2008

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Westport Petroleum, Inc. v. Andorra Services, Inc. (The “Aldana”) – SMA No. 3995, 27 Feb 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- TIME-BAR -- CHARTERPARTY CONSTRUCTION -- HEATING AND PURGING -- Owner Award Owners submitted a claim for additional heating and purging costs beyond the scope of the requirements in the charter party, but Charterers rejected the claim as time-barred. The Panel was called on to settle the dispute and explained how specific modifications to the charter party terms affected their ruling.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Ugland Dry Bulk AS v Westport Petroleum Inc. (The “Four Island”) – SMA No. 3997, 11 Apr 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- INTERPRETATION OF RELOAD CLAUSE -- FREIGHT ASSESSMENT -- NUMBER OF CARGO GRADES CARRIED -- Charterer Award During the discharge at Freeport, Charterers informed Owners that they planned on loading additional cargo after discharge operations completed. Owners commenced arbitration to recover this freight payment from Charterers. Charterers disagreed, claiming that they were within their rights to reload cargo at any discharge port within the scope of the charter party. This award describes how the Panel interpreted the special provisions clauses and applied them to the dispute.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 23/07

GENCON -- DEMURRAGE -- WHETHER BERTH OR PORT CHARTER -- NIGHT TRANSIT -- GROUNDING -- AWAITING PILOT -- SHIFT TO BERTH -- Owner Award This award covered a number of issues, including whether the fixture of "one safe berth" and a WIBON (whether in berth or not) constituted a berth charter party, whether or not port restrictions on night transits are demurrage events, and how a pilot shortage affected the Panel's ruling on waiting time and a grounding incident.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 25/07

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER TRIP -- SUBSTANTIAL DELAYS AT DISPORT -- IMPLIED TERM TO DISCHARGE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME -- OWNERS’ CLAIM FOR FINANCIAL LOSS -- Charterer Award Under a NYPE form time charter, the Vessel delivered cargo to Lagos, but wasn't given berthing instructions for nine months. Owners commenced arbitration to recover lost profits from the delay in redelivering the Vessel. How did the Panel define "reasonable time" under a NYPE charter party? This Panel's ruling lays out what happens when parties don't include protective clauses with specific wording in their contracts.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

The Asia Star – Singapore Court of Appeal, 27 Mar 2007

VEGOILVOY -- SUBSTANTIAL FAILURE OF EPOXY COATING OF CARGO TANKS -- TANK LINING -- VESSEL SUITABILITY -- WHETHER OWNERS IN BREACH OF CHARTER -- Charterer Award The Charterer's inspector rejected the Vessel's tanks due to severe corrosion and rust, and declared the Vessel unsuitable. Charterer held the Owner in breach of the charter not only for the condition of the tanks, but also if the Vessel's tanks were actually epoxy coated as presented in the charter party. Charterer won the initial dispute in the Court of Singapore. Owners appealed, and this award details how the Court approached the issue.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Marine Provisions: Are They Necessary in Commodity Contracts of Sale?

Intrinsic to long-term profitability in the commercial cargo trades is the creation of a comprehensive set of marine provisions. When buying or selling cargoes via marine transport many companies incorporate express demurrage terms defining the assessment of liability basis the type of transaction. These clauses are generally referred to as marine provisions and although some companies may apply these provisions to either sales or purchases, as the seller’s contract is generally the contract that governs the transaction, the majority of provisions are geared towards protecting the seller. Nevertheless, there are also those companies that, when selling, fail to have the foresight to incorporate specific marine provisions into their contracts.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.