Tagged: Vol. 4 No. 4

Neptune Orient Lines, Ltd. v. Sun International, Ltd. (The “Neptune Corona”) – SMA No. 3407, 7 Jan 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LIGHTER -- CARGO -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- VOYAGE -- Charterer Award In order to arrive at the designated disport, the Vessel needed to lighter her cargo to meet the maximum transit draft. But due to five different "errors of judgment" by the Vessel’s Master, The Charterer demanded that the Owner both reimburse the lightering expenses and drastically reduce the voyage’s demurrage claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Nimrod Motor Tanker Co., Ltd. v. Neste Trifinery Petroleum Services (The “Nimrod”) – SMA No. 3409, 15 Jan 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- PORT -- DOCK -- BERTH -- SPEED WARRANTY -- Charterer Award This voyage’s fixed discharge port was a Citgo dock where berthing priority was given to other Citgo vessels. So when the Vessel failed to meet the minimum speed warranty (and therefore missed laycan), she lost her place in line for berth to a Citgo ship. When billed for this delay, the Charterers contend that they should be exempt from invoicing because if the Owner had followed the speed warranty, the berth would have been free upon arrival.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Stolt Tankers Inc. v. Wings Investment Ltd. – SMA No. 3417, 30 Jan 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- ARBITRATION -- TUGBOAT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- INTEREST -- Owner Award This arbitration covers several key issues such as tank testing expenses at berth, dock labor charges not related to cargo carriage, tug standby costs, demurrage at berth, and the interest rate for delayed payment.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Andromeda Management, Ltd. (BVI) v. Clark Oil Trading Co. (The “Purple Star”) – SMA No. 3420, 9 Feb 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DEMURRAGE -- LOADPORT -- LAYTIME -- MOORING -- DISPORT -- ACT OF GOD -- Charterer Award This arbitration centers upon two separate instances during voyage where the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage. At the loadport, the Owners counted laytime until the Vessel completed unmooring instead of up to the traditional "hoses off." The other argument was over laytime calculations at disport when adverse weather temporarily halted discharge.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Blystad Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Global Petroleum Corp. (The “Falcon”) – SMA No. 3421, 16 Feb 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- TERMINAL -- PUMP WARRANTY -- PART CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award Because of terminal pump limitations for part cargoes, the Vessel could not satisfy the pump warranty stipulated in the charter party. The Owners then subsequently requested to calculate the pump credit by the difference between the theoretical time at 100 PSI against the actual time.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.