Author: Haugen Consulting
VEGOILVOY -- PORT -- CARGO -- CUSTOMS -- SHORE TANK -- CUSTOMS -- Owner Award
As is customary discharge procedure for the port, the Owners discharged cargo under customs control. However, the Charterers found the shore tank empty and demanded reimbursement for the improper discharge of cargo to customs officials.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- DISPORT -- TYPHOON -- ACT OF GOD -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Although the berthing delay at disport was caused by a typhoon, the Owners argue that their claim is valid because the typhoon happened sixteen days before berth. Subsequent changes could have been made to accommodate possible delays.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- LOADPORT -- FIBER GRADE -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- Charterer Award
The Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of corn oil at one loadport as well as a fiber grade cargo of ethylene glycol at another. However, the Vessel’s zinc tanks failed numerous inspections for the ethylene glycol and caused the Charterer to cancel the charter party on the grounds that the Vessel was unready to load within the given laydays.
ASBATANKVOY -- BILL OF LADING -- FREIGHT -- LIEN -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- Owner Award
Because the Bill of Lading was late in arriving, the freight payment due Owners was also delayed. In response, the Owners exercised their posessory lien on the cargo at the discharge port until the freight was paid, thereby accruing demurrage that the Owners’ claim was ultimately faulted by the Charterers.
VEGOILVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- PART CARGO -- PIPELINES -- Owner Award
The Vessel accrued demurrage at disport because of difficulties discharging a part cargo of semi-refined fish oil. The Owner blamed the Charterers’ cargo for the delay on the grounds that lines connected to the fish oil’s tanks were backed up with sludge and particles while other part cargoes were discharged without delay.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- TRANSSHIP -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award
This arbitration centered upon disputed language between charter party exception clauses. The Owners had to transship cargo due to ice restrictions to the original disport, a task which the Owners’ claim falls under the language of Clause 14 ("if port … is inaccessible due to ice … any demurrage is responsibility of the Charterer"). But, there is a Transship Clause which states that “Owners have the option to transship the cargo at their own time.”
EXXONVOY 90 -- DISPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- PORT -- Charterer Award
While discharging at the first of two disports, the Vessel failed to meet the charter party’s pump warranty. After the voyage, the Owners presented an adjusted demurrage claim that excluded laytime while not meeting the pump warranty at the first port. The Charterers, however, argued that no laytime at discharge after breaching the warranty, including laytime at the second port, can be counted as demurrage.
WARSHIPOILVOY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- OFFSHORE STORAGE -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award
Because the cargo was contaminated, the Charterers used the Vessel as an offshore storage facility while filtering the cargo into a useful form. The Owners argue that contamination came from the loadport’s inferior steel railcars, and therefore claim this extensive delay at disport as demurrage. The Charterers contended that the disport samples prove that the contamination occurred on the Vessel and counterclaimed for cargo damages.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- BROKER -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award
The Owners submitted a demurrage invoice within the 90-day time-bar, however, the Charterers contested its completeness upon submission. The Owners subsequently resubmitted the full claim to the broker on the last day of the time-bar, which they claim satisfies the charter party.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- HANDLING COSTS -- Owner Award
Because the cargo was found to be off spec at disport, the Charterers accepted a US$100,000 settlement for the contamination. In addition to the settlement, the Owners submitted a demurrage claim for additional laytime at disport. However, the Charterers counterclaimed for excess handling costs and rejected the Owner’s invoice based on the cargo contamination and the Vessel’s inoperative radar.
