Tagged: Vol. 5 No. 3

ASBA II — PORT — AGENT — BERTH — TERMINAL — DEMURRAGE — Charterer Award

The Vessel was notified by her agents that she would likely be able to berth upon arrival; however, the terminal unexpectedly berthed another vessel out of turn and forced the Vessel to wait an additional 30H for a free berth. When the Owners billed this as demurrage, the Charterers argued that they were not responsible for the terminal’s mix-up and define this situation as “beyond their control.”

ASBATANKVOY — PART CARGO — TANKERMEN — BARGE — CARGO — TERMINAL — PIPELINE — ARBITRATION — CONTAMINATION — Charterer Award

The Vessel was to be loaded with three separate part cargoes, however the tankermen failed to switch the barge tanks in time to accommodate the cargo changeover in the terminal’s pipeline. The Owner began arbitration to recover damages from the resulting cargo mixing and contamination.

ASBATANKVOY — LAYCAN — LOADPORT — PART CARGO — LOI — BILL OF LADING — Charterer Award

The Vessel missed her laycan at loadport, but due to the Owners’ misrepresented ETA for the last layday, the Charterers were not aware of any possible delay until after the cancellation date. And further delays were introduced after part cargo storage confusion and the resulting Charterers’ refusal to deliver an LOI until new Bills of Lading were written to fix the confusion. Likewise, the Owners refused to unload until the time spent waiting for LOI was compensated.

ASBATANKVOY — DISPORT — BUNKER — DEMURRAGE — Partial Owner Award

Because of the falling market prices for oil, the Charterer ordered the Vessel to proceed directly to disport after loading and to exercise a “high speed” option that would make her minimum speed 15 knots. However, without a clear discharge program, the Owner decided to divert the Vessel in order to re-stock bunkers. And when billed for the subsequent demurrage and high speed premium, the Charterers refused to pay and counterclaimed for lost profits from a delayed delivery.