Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd. v. Naviera del Pacifico SA de CV (The “Dzintari”) – SMA No. 3771, 24 Feb 2003

SHELLTIME 4 -- ARBITRATION -- OFF-HIRE -- VETTING -- VOYAGE -- TIME CHARTER -- Owner Award This arbitration dispute arose from a potentially invalid off-hire declaration by the Charterer. In this case, the Charterer declared the Vessel off-hire until proper CDI vetting approval; however, the Charterer also ordered the Vessel to undergo a voyage during this off-hire. So when the Owners were billed for this period, they argued that the Vessel was technically in use by the Charterer.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bore Line Pte Ltd. v. Seaboard Marine, Inc. (The “Seaboard Horizon”) – SMA No. 3740, 15 Jun 2002

NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- SEAWORTHINESS -- BUNKER -- ARBITRATION -- Partial Owner Award Throughout the life of the time charter contract, the Vessel had experienced extensive engine problems which rendered the Vessel off-hire on several occasions. The Charterers billed the Owners for the off-hire time and claimed that the delays were because of Vessel unseaworthiness. The Owners, on the other hand, blame the Charterer-supplied, low-grade bunkers for the engine trouble.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Transportes Maritimos Centroamericanos v. Paper Sea AS (The “Forest Link”) – SMA No. 3745, 25 Jul 2002

NYPE -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- SUBCHARTER -- TIME CHARTER -- UNSEAWORTHY -- NONPERFORMANCE -- OFF-HIRE -- Partial Owner Award After repeated incidents of Vessel-caused cargo contamination, few valued shippers would subcharter the Vessel. The Charterers then began arbitration in order to terminate the long-term time charter with the Vessel on the grounds that the Vessel was consistently unseaworthy. The Owners argued that the only response to nonperformance is the off-hire clause, not cancellation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Cape Tankers Inc. v. Chemoil Corp. – SMA No. 3746, 5 Aug 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- VOYAGE -- FREIGHT -- VESSEL -- Partial Charterer Award This arbitration from a Contract of Affreightment encompasses four separate disputes pertinent to COA legislation. Owner failure to inform Charterers of ETA changes, proper withdrawal of a notice of repudiation, the number of voyages contracted in a COA, and freight difference for substitute vessels are all discussed in the proceedings.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Amerada Hess Shipping Corp. v. Intercontinental Petroleum Teoranta (The “Meridan Lion”) – SMA No. 3738, 28 May 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- CARGO -- CLAIM -- DETENTION -- PORT -- MITIGATION -- VOYAGE -- Partial Owner Award Upon the Vessel berthing at loadport, the Owners received a message stating that the Charterers could not supply the contracted cargo. The Owners subsequently filed a claim for detention, port expenses, and loss on mitigation voyage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Tankers International LLC v. Bayoil Supply and Trading, Ltd. (The “Raphael”) – SMA No. 3739, 10 Jun 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- EXPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTHING -- EMBARGO -- CARGO -- Owner Award When the Vessel arrived at loadport, the port’s national government halted all oil exports because of United Nations pricing disputes. The Owner filed a demurrage claim for the berthing delay incurred by this embargo citing that the cargo must conform at all times with UN standards. The Charterers counterclaim that the oil suspension should be seen as a "restraint of prices," which the charter views as billable.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Poseidon Schiffahrt GmbH v. Transocean Coal Co., Inc. (The “Siboeva”) – SMA No. 3742, 10 Jul 2002

AMWELSH -- FORCE MAJEURE -- LOADPORT -- FOG -- LOCK -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award The Vessel arrived at loadport, tendered NOR, and passed inspection. But due to fog and lock outages, the Charterers declared force majeure ("unexpected event that can excuse a party from a contract") and told the Owner that the cargo’s arrival would be delayed. The Owners subsequently filed for demurrage arguing that the Charterers failed to provide a timely notice of such delays.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Jardine Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Citgo Asphalt Refining Co. (The “Mara”) – SMA No. 3744, 10 Jul 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- DIRTY CARGO -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CONTAMINATION -- SWEET CARGO -- FREIGHT -- Owner Award After transporting several dirty cargos as instructed in the COA, the Charterer ordered the OBO Vessel to load a "sweet" cargo. The Vessel began loading, but when foot samples were taken, the freight was noticeably contaminated. At arbitration, the Owners claim that the Charterers had no proof of Vessel-caused contamination due to lack of shore samples and unreliable analysis reports.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Giant Shipping, Ltd. v. Tauber Oil Co. (The “Posidon”) – SMA No. 3732, 8 Apr 2002

ASBATANKVOY -- BERTH -- LOADPORT -- ROB -- LSWR -- DEMURRAGE -- TANK -- Split Award Because the Vessel berthed at loadport with over 2000 bbls of residual LSWR (previous cargo), the Charterer refused Vessel loading and ordered extensive tank cleaning. The Owners submitted demurrage for the cleaning delay because they argue that the tanks met the contracted cleaning stipulations, while the Charterers counterclaim for the cleaning costs maintaining that the excessive residue rendered the Vessel unready to load.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Oxyde Chemicals, Inc. v. Haewang Industries Co., Ltd. (The “Sunny Chemi”) – SMA No. 3712, 7 Dec 2001

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- CARGO -- CONTAMINATION -- SAMPLE -- LOADPORT -- TERMINAL -- Owner Award When the Vessel arrived at disport, the discharged cargo was found to be contaminated upon sampling. The Charterer subsequently claimed damages in light of the loadport samples being uncontaminated. However, the Owners refuted the loadport samples’ accuracy and argued that they were taken forty-nine days prior to loading and only from one of the two terminal tanks.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.