Author: Haugen Consulting
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.
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?
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"?
ASBATANKVOY -- DISCHARGING PREWASH SLOPS -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award
Although Charterer didn't respond to Owner's initiation of arbitration proceedings, the Panel took matters into their own hands and edited the demurrage claim for time spent discharging slops. This award explains why.
ASBATANKVOY --ONE SAFE BERTH -- ADDITIONAL BERTH COSTS -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Although the Vessel was fixed basis "one safe berth" for discharging, an agreement was made after the fixture adding a second berth. Owner commenced arbitration to recover the additional costs and demurrage incurred during the voyage.
ASBATANKVOY -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- INABILITY TO PROVIDE FULL CARGO DUE TO SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award
In this dispute, the Panel was called upon to determine the Charterer's liability following their failure to provide the minimum amount of cargo stated in the charter party due to draft restrictions caused by silting. The Panel explains what other options the Charterer could have exercised other than simply loading less cargo to the Vessel.
NYPE -- LATE REDELIVERY -- WHETHER SUBSEQUENT LOST PROFITS WERE FORSEEABLE -- DAMAGES UNDER SUBSEQUENT FIXTURE -- Charterer Award
Following the late redelivery of the Vessel from a time charter, Owners were forced to renegotiate their next time charter at a lower rate. Owners claimed $1.3 million in damages and won the dispute. On this appeal by Charterers, the Panel overturned the previous ruling with the simple question "Would an objective person have anticipated such a large loss of profits from the redelivery of a time chartered vessel made nine days late?" The award details the Panel's ruling and settlement.
SHELLTIME 4 -- VESSEL FITNESS FOR SERVICE WHEN REGULATIONS RESTRICTING CARGOES CHANGE -- MARPOL -- SEAWORTHINESS -- Charterer Award
Two vessels were contracted for the carriage of fuel oils, but following the fixture, MARPOL regulations were changed, requiring fuel oil to be carried only in double-hulled ships. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, and described what changes could have been made to the two vessels to bring them in compliance with the new MARPOL regulations.
ASBATANKVOY -- RESPONSIBILITY FOR "PIER DUES" -- CONFLICTING CLAUSES -- AMENDMENTS -- Charterer Award
Although this award focuses on the responsibility for paying pier dues, it is relevant to laytime and demurrage in that the charter party contains two clauses which are in conflict. The Panel determines which clause takes precedence, and explains why.
STEMMOR -- ACCEPTANCE OF NOR -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- TIME COUNTING DURING BUNKERING -- Owner Award
The Panel is asked to rule on a variety of topics, including whether or not the failure to reject a NOR means that it is inherently accepted, the nature of "reversible" laytime and how laytime should be calculated for separate parcels, and whether time spent bunkering while waiting for an available berth counts as laytime.
