Category: Archive

Archive / Maritime Articles

UP CLOSE: ConocoPhillips 2009 Marine Provisions

ConocoPhillips recently issued Marine Provisions for incorporation in commercial sales contracts which became effective January 1, 2009, superseding the September 1, 2008 Marine Provisions and January 1, 2005 Marine Provisions. Whether the seller is the Terminal Party (the party taking delivery from, or making delivery to, a Vessel); or the Vessel Party (the party, in agreement responsible for, taking delivery on, or making delivery from, a Vessel), ConocoPhillips’ new marine provisions are intended to be equitable and are clear when defining the respective parties’ responsibilities and liabilities. This being said, there are a number of intricacies within the provisions. From the perspective of a demurrage analyst, we find the following to be some of the items of note.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Team Tankers AS v. Tricon Shipping Ltd. (The “Siteam Merkur”) – SMA No. 4016, 25 Nov 2008

ASBATANKVOY -- WITHHELD FREIGHT -- SECURITY -- CONDITION OF TANKS -- Partial Final Owner Award On arrival at the third loading port, the inspectors found the Vessel's remaining tanks unsuitable to load, calling the epoxy coating too badly deteriorated. The Vessel sailed to the discharge port without loading the balance cargo. The Charterer withheld freight, citing the Vessel's condition and the cost of acquiring alternate carriage for the unloaded cargo.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Mansel Oil Ltd. and Another v. Troon Storage Tankers SA (The “Ailsa Craig”) – EWHC 1269 (Comm. Ct.), 9 Jun 2008

SHELLTIME 4 -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL NOT DELIVERED BY CANCELLATION DATE -- DELIVERY PORT NOT NAMED -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- FUTILITY -- Charterer Award Although the Vessel was due to be delivered to Nigeria to commence a time charterer contract, she was at drydock in Greece and missed the deadline for the delivery date. Charterer cancelled the charter, which Owner refuted, citing additional work which Charterer had ordered on the Vessel's tanks which made the deadline impossible to meet. Owner also argued that Charterer failed in their obligation to nominate a specific delivery port, which would have given Owners 30 days to make delivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

P v. A and Another – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 20 Jun 2008

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Mediterranean Salvage & Towing Ltd. v. Seamar Trading & Commerce Inc. (The “Reborn”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 1 Aug 2008

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

Statoil ASA v. Louis Dreyfus Energy Services LP (The “Harriette N”) – QBD (Comm. Ct.), 29 Sep 2008

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

Archive / Maritime Articles

Piracy: Untested Waters?

Perhaps due to November’s capture by pirates of the Sirius Star, a fully laden VLCC captured some 500 nautical miles off the coast of Kenya, the fact that piracy has dramatically increased in the past year has finally entered the vernacular of the mainstream media spurring interest amongst those outside the maritime community.1 This interest has sparked many suggestions and opinions on how to stop piracy, some action towards that goal, concern over piracy’s human and economic costs and how to best resolve the tricky legal issues that can arise.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Allied Chemical Carriers, LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Colt”) – SMA No. 3998, 30 Apr 2008

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

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Allied Chemical Carriers LLC v. National Biofuels LLP (The “Fairchem Steed”) – SMA No. 3999, 30 Apr 2008

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

Archive / English Maritime Cases

AIC Ltd. v. Marine Pilot Ltd. (The “Archimidis”) – English Court of Appeal, 07 Mar 2008

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