Author: Haugen Consulting
GENCON -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- BILL OF LADING -- LOADPORT -- STATEMENT OF FACTS -- LETTER OF INDEMNITY -- Owner Award
After loading a clearly contaminated cargo, the Charterer and Owner disputed over whether the contamination should be mentioned in the Bill of Lading, which resulted in vessel delays at loadport. The Charterer believed that the contamination could be logged in the statement of facts and withheld the Letter of Indemnity until a clean B/L was issued. The Owner therefore blamed the delay on the Charterer.
ASBATANKVOY -- SHORTLOADED -- DRAFT -- BAD WEATHER -- SILTING -- DEADFREIGHT -- SAFE PORT WARRANTY -- Partial Owner Award
At loadport, the Vessel could only safely load to a less-than-contracted draft level due to bad weather conditions and excess silting. The Owner demanded that the Charterer pay deadfreight for the voyage due to negligence in declaring a safe vessel berth. The Charterer, however, believed that it was the Owner’s responsibility to validate the port’s safety and that the contractual term "safe port" was not a warranty but a mutual agreement that the port was safe.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- ARBITRATION -- TANK CLEANLINESS -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Charterer Award
Upon the Vessel’s arrival at loadport, the Charterers’ inspector rejected the Vessel due to excess rust and tank lining deterioration. The Vessel crew attempted to clean the tanks over laycan, but ultimately could not meet the inspector’s minimum standards, so the Charterers subsequently terminated the charter party. The Owners refuted the cancellation by claiming that the expected standards were unjust and began arbitration for losses.
TRUCKER STRIKE -- CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS -- WORK SLOW-DOWN -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Charterer Award
Due to a trucking strike at disport, the discharge operation was protracted, causing the Vessel to incur demurrage. The Charterer refuted the demurrage claim, citing that the strike was out of their control, and therefore, exempt from demurrage fees. On the other hand, Owner argued that the Charterers had not satisfied their obligation to search for alternative means of discharge.
FRAME CONTRACT -- VOYAGE -- TIME-BAR --CARGO CONTAMINATION -- LIMITATIONS ACT 1980 -- Seller Award
This arbitration began as a result of two disputed "frame contract" voyages between the same Buyer and Seller. The first dispute centered around a potential time-bar exception under the Limitations Act 1980 to the Buyer’s presented claim. The second dispute concerned contaminated cargo onboard the Vessel, the resulting demurrage at disport and the liability of such contamination and delays.
GENCON -- IMPORT -- CARGO -- POSSESSORY LIEN -- DETENTION AT DISPORT -- ARBITRATION ACT 1996 -- PROPER CHARTER PARTY CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
Because the Receivers recently had their import license revoked, the Vessel was unable to discharge cargo at the nominated disport. The Owners responded by exercising their possessory lien on the cargo and ordered the Vessel to remain outside of port while concurrently accruing demurrage. The Owners began arbitration with the threat of charter party cancellation if the cargo was not received commercially acceptable time.
TIME CHARTER -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- WAR OUTBREAK -- COMPENSATION FOR MARKET LOSS -- Charterer Award
The Owners began arbitration when the Time-Charterers returned the Vessel in 2001, several years before the conclusion of their time charter period without reimbursement for the remainder of the charter. The Owners argued that the Time-Charterers were liable for the outstanding payment and demanded compensation. Conversely, the Time-Charterers cited a wartime exception clause which made them indebted only up to the Second Gulf War in 2003.
FROZEN BALLAST -- PROOF OF PUBLIC HOLIDAY -- SUBSTANTIVE PROOF -- Charterer Award
Two separate demurrage issues arose over the course of the voyage. At loadport, the Vessel appeared to be fully loaded when, in fact, there was frozen ballast water remaining on board. The Charterers argued that the time spent waiting for the ice to thaw and loading recommencement should not count as used laytime. A second arbitration issue concerned the Charterers’ belief that December 27 was a national holiday (and a laytime exception) at disport.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEVIATION -- FREIGHT -- HURRICANE -- WORLDSCALE -- ACT OF GOD -- STORM -- HURRICANE -- DEVIATION COSTS -- Owner Award
After arrival in the Mississippi River for discharge, the Vessel was subsequently ordered to sail to Houston for discharge in order to avoid a hurricane. At issue is the calculation of freight and deviation costs; whether Houston constituted the Charterer’s second discharge port option as per Charterer’s Diversion Clause or did the sole disport with the Mississippi River constitute a deviation.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTHING ORDERS -- CANCELLATION -- MITIGATE -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOST PROFITS -- Owner Award
Three days after laycan, the Charterers declared that the cargo transaction had failed and cancelled the charter. The Vessel sailed to fulfill other pre-existing contracts, and initiated arbitration to recover lost profits.
