Category: Archive

Archive / Maritime Articles

What Constitutes a Safe Port / Berth?

Intrinsic within the majority of charter parties is the need for the charterer to provide a safe berth and/or a safe port for the particular chartered Vessel. This is well defined by J. Bond Smith in the “Tulane Law Review” (Vol. 49, No. 4 p. 61).
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Gulf Atlantic Operations, LLC. v. Andorra Services, Inc. BVI (The “Elise Schulte”) – SMA No. 3921, 20 Apr 2006

BPVOY4 -- LAYTIME -- FREE PRATIQUE -- NOTICE OF READINESS CLAUSE -- PORT -- Owner Award After the Vessel tendered NOR in the Port of New York, it took over 6H to grant free pratique—a violation to the BPVOY4’s Notice of Readiness Clause. However, the Port of New York does not formally endow free pratique, but instead views a tendered NOR as the beginning of laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Tokyo Marine Co. Ltd. (The “Bow Petros”) – SMA No. 3922, 19 Apr 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYTIME -- PRORATED -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- PARCEL TANKER -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The original Charter Party contained no stipulation on laytime rates, so in order to incentivize payment, the Owners gave a gratis prorated cost for time at port. However, when the demurrage claim became outstanding, the Owners began arbitration and removed the original prorate and pursued the claim in full.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Elvado Trading Ltd. v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (The “Cariad”) – SMA No. 3924, 14 Apr 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- TERMINAL -- DOCK MASTER -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES -- Charterer Award After the vessel had been loaded with separate cargos, the Charterer discovered that one of the cargos had been contaminated with another. The Owner claimed that the contamination came from the terminal and commenced arbitration for demurrage and shifting expenses caused by the contamination. The Charterer counterclaimed for costs lost material costs arguing that the contamination resulted from tank seal defects.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 10/06

ASBATANKVOY -- LPG CARGO -- VALIDITY OF LOAD NOR WHEN POSSIBLE CONTAMINANTS FOUND IN VESSEL’S TANKS -- NIGHTTIME TRANSIT RESTRICTION -- DELAY FINDING SOLUTION FOR CONTAMINANTS IN TANKS -- DOCUMENTS ONBOARD -- UNSAFE BERTH -- SHIFT COSTS -- ROB -- Partial Owner Award The arbitration following the Vessel’s voyage encompassed several key demurrage arguments. Disagreements centered on the validity of the Vessel’s NOR (tendered after a pre-inspection revealed contaminants in three tanks), the responsibility of the Charterer in supplying a safe berth "reachable on [the Vessel’s] arrival," shifting delays, and ROB compensation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / English Maritime Cases

London Arbitration 12/06

ASBATANKVOY -- VALIDITY OF NOR TENDERED EOSP -- RECEIPT OF NOR -- VESSEL RESTRICTED LOADING -- LOW DISCHARGE TEMPERATURE AND EFFECT ON DISCHARGE RATE -- LINING UP -- REDUCED INTEREST -- Owner Award This dispute arises out of the finer aspects of proper NOR declaration. In this case, the Vessel tendered NOR upon arriving at the disport’s entry buoy, which the Charterers refute as "customary anchorage." If this is not considered “customary anchorage,” then the Vessel’s NOR cannot represent a valid laytime beginning.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / Maritime Articles

Notice Of Readiness: EOSP vs. Customary Anchorage

Recapped in this issue of The TANKVOYager is London Arbitration 12/06 which among other subjects, deals with the tender of NOR prior to the Vessel’s arrival at the customary anchorage; as required in Asbatankvoy as well as certain other boilerplates. Thus, the intention of this article is to look at both London and New York arbitrators’ respective approaches to the tender of NOR at end of sea passage (EOSP) when the underlying C/P requires NOR be tendered from the customary anchorage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jo Tankers BV v. Tankers Bahamas Ltd. (The “Jo Eik”) – SMA No. 3905, 28 Nov 2005

EXXONMOBIL VOY2000 -- PURGE -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- LOAD PORT -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CARGO HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award This arbitration stems from the Contract of Affreightment on ExxonMobil Voy2000 and the responsibility of nitrogen purging. In this case, when the Vessel reached the load port, the Charterers refused Vessel loading because the tanks were not purged to the cargo’s required .5% O2 level. The Owners, however, brought evidence proving that the specific purging requirements were not included in the COA or the voyage orders.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

China Shipping Development Co. Ltd. v. Richshine Metal, Inc. (The “Sea Light II”) – SMA No. 3907, 14 Dec 2005

VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR within laycan, however the Charterer failed to supply the cargo. The Charterer, after fourteen days of expressing to the Owner that loading would begin soon, cancelled the Charter Party because of "unexpected problems." The Owner subsequently demanded compensation for damages to demurrage, deadfreight, and detention.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Odfjell Seachem AS v. Clariant Corp. (The “Bow Favour”, “Bow Andino”, & “Bow Gorgonilla”) – SMA No. 3915, 21 Feb 2006

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- FREIGHT -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- INTEREST ON FREIGHT AND DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award After outstanding demurrage and freight bills for three separate voyages, the Owner began arbitration to recover lost profits and interest. Although the Charterer did not participate in the proceedings, the sole arbitrator pointed out several issues with the Vessel's NOR at the loadport which could have been contested.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.