Author: Haugen Consulting

Stolt Tankers, Inc. v. Clarissa Shipping Co. Ltd. (The “Lacerta”) – SMA No. 3515, 5 Mar 1999

SHELLTIME 3 -- VOYAGE -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- SALVAGE -- TIME-BAR -- COSGA -- Partial Owner Award At some point along the voyage, the cargo had become contaminated and had to be sold as salvage at a great loss to the sub-charterers. The Charterers presented a timely claim to the Owners and communication about reimbursement continued between parties over the next year until the Vessel Owners declared the claim time-barred under COSGA.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Paige International Ltd. v. Adam Maritime Corp. and Glencore Ltd. (The “Saint Vassilios”) – SMA No. 3491, 11 Dec 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DECK LINES -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award As per the Charter Party, a cargo of LSWR was meant to be loaded between 125F – 135F, however, the LSWR was loaded at 115F – 120F which caused it to congeal and clog the deck lines. The Owner then invoiced the Charterers for cleaning expenses and the resulting demurrage incurred by the clogged lines.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Petro Jamaica v. Griffin Industries, Inc. (The “Petrojam Trader”) – SMA No. 3493, 14 Dec 1998

SHELLTIME 4 -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- BUNKER -- WEATHER -- ACT OF GOD -- OFF-HIRE -- Charterer Award This arbitration dispute encompasses several key points of contention that arise over the course of the voyage. The arguments include the Vessel’s bunker usage, compensation for Vessel damage resulting from harsh weather at berth, and various claims for off-hire.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Stolt Tankers Inc. (The “Stolt Resolute”) – SMA No. 3482, 10 Nov 1998

CARGO -- SAMPLE -- RECONDITIONING -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award After sampling the cargo and finding it off spec, the Receiver’s insurance company demanded that the Owner pay for cargo reconditioning. The Owner argued that, upon delivery, the cargo was more pure than the Receiver’s average stock and counterclaimed for punitive cleaning damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Gaschem Tankers v. Montpelier Trading, Inc. (The “Elbegas”) – SMA No. 3484, 20 Nov 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- INTEREST -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The Charterers agreed to the Owners’ demurrage invoice; however, they failed to deliver payment over the course of several months. The Owners began arbitration to collect demurrage plus interest.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Texaco International Trader, Inc. v. Sunoco Overseas, Inc. (The “Proof Trader”) – SMA No. 3485, 30 Oct 1998

TEXACOVOY 94 -- LOADPORT -- MANIFOLD -- SALES AGREEMENT -- CANCELLATION -- ARBITRATION -- Seller Award The Vessel had been nominated by the Buyer and subsequently accepted by the Seller. But upon arrival to loadport, the placement of the Vessel’s manifolds made loading impossible and the Vessel was summarily rejected by the Seller. The Buyer claimed that the Seller breached the sales agreement by not rejecting the Vessel in a timely matter and began arbitration to recover cancellation expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Windsor Investment Corp. v. Stolt Tankers, Inc. (The “Marilee”) – SMA No. 3487, 30 Nov 1998

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- TANKS -- Owner Award Throughout the life of the time charter, the Vessel was declared off-hire on numerous occasions for tank wall cleaning purposes. And at the end of the contract, the Charterers billed the Owners for the entirety of the time spent off-hire plus the cost of the tank cleaning chemicals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

US Titan, Inc. v. Lagoven SA (The “Da Qing 88”) – SMA No. 3458, 26 Jun 1998

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."
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. Pacific Refining Co. (The “Crowley Barge 450-11”) – SMA No. 3466, 30 Jun 1998

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Bryggen Shipping & Trading AS v. Bramber Corp., BVI (The “Flamenco”) – SMA No. 3477, 20 Oct 1998

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.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.