Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Chembulk Trading, Inc. v. Coscol Marine Corp. (The “Courier”) – SMA No. 3587, 7 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- PLATFORM -- MOORING -- BERTH -- DEMURRAGE -- SHIFTING -- ARBITRATION -- Draw / Claim Offset The Vessel arrived at the nominated offshore discharge platform with insufficient equipment to secure the Vessel to the mooring system. The Charterers then redirected the Vessel to a shore berth and completed discharge without incident. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for the excess shifting time while the Charterers counterclaim for shore berth expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Fairfield Chemical Carriers, Inc. v. Sapi Spy, Italy (The “Khirurg Vishnevkiy”) – SMA No. 3595, 22 Feb 1999

VEGOILVOY -- DEADFREIGHT -- LAYTIME -- CARGO -- DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award Because of Charterer-incurred deadfreight, the Owners computed their laytime allowances based on the amount of cargo loaded. They argued that deadfreight is an element of damages that has no bearings on allowed laytime. The Charterers, on the other hand, contend that a fully loaded Vessel should be the basis for allowed laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Gaschem Services GMBH & Co. v. Olin Corp. (The “Beatrice”) – SMA No. 3603, 31 Jan 2000

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- CONTAMINATION -- INSPECTION -- TANK SAMPLE -- Charterer Award The Owners brought arbitration against the Charterers because of an alleged wrongful cancellation of the charter party. In this case, the Vessel was chartered to load a cargo of clean propylene oxide, but failed tank inspection multiple times at loadport. And after the Master did not offer any further cleaning, the Charterer rejected the Vessel and cancelled the charter.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Combo Maritime Inc. v. Standard Tankers Bayamas Ltd. (The “Alkaios”) – SMA No. 3582, 16 Dec 1999

EXXONVOY 90 -- ANCHORAGE -- CHANNEL -- FOG -- ARBITRATION -- DEMURRAGE -- PORT -- Charterer Award Upon tendering NOR at an uncustomary anchorage 226 miles away from port, dense fog forced the Vessel to wait three additional days before undergoing a necessary US Coast Guard survey and proceeding to customary anchorage. At arbitration, the Owners claim this time under demurrage while the Charterers argue that the Vessel was not an "arrived ship" 226 miles away from port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

O.N.E. Shipping, Inc. v. Pecten Chemicals, Inc. – SMA No. 3583, 29 Dec 1999

SHELLVOY 5 -- ARBITRATION -- PUMP WARRANTY -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- PRECEDENCE -- Charterer Award At arbitration, disputes centered upon the interpretation and execution of the pump warranty. The Owners submitted a demurrage claim for excess pumping time and argued that the Charterers had set a charter- amending precedent by agreeing to the Owners’ interpretation of the pump warranty in the past. The Charterers refute any such precedent for open claims.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Westgas A/S v. Montpelier Trading, Inc. (The “Varanger”) – SMA No. 3542, 7 Jul 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DISPORT -- CARGO -- SAMPLE -- CONTAMINATION -- BERTH -- Partial and Full Owner Award The Owners began arbitration to collect outstanding payments on two separate voyages with the Charterers. On the first voyage, the Vessel was delayed for two days at disport when cargo samples revealed unacceptable water content. And on the second voyage, when the Vessel arrived at disport, she was forced to wait ten days for berthing instructions.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

AP Moller v. Harbour Rich Chemical Co., Ltd. (The “Haigas”) – SMA No. 3547, 2 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- SHORESIDE -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

AP Moller v. Harbour Rich Chemical Co., Ltd. (The “Maersk Sussex”) – SMA No. 3548, 2 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- SHORESIDE -- ARBITRATION -- CHARTER PARTY -- Owner Award Upon arriving at disport, the Vessel accrued extensive demurrage while being forced to wait for a free berth and shoreside storage space. And when the Owner started arbitration to recover demurrage, the Charterers did not appoint an arbitrator, denied the existence of a binding charter party, and refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Panel to settle disputes.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Aquacharm Shipping Co., Ltd. v. Venus Lines Agency, Inc. and Venus Line Maritime, Inc. (The “Aqua Sierra”) – SMA No. 3555, 5 Aug 1999

AMWELSH -- STEAMING -- BERTH -- PORT -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award Because of delays steaming upriver, the Vessel missed her designated berthing time and was forced to wait once she arrived at port. The Owners contend that this delay was due to an insufficient draft while steaming, therefore making it demurrage. The Charterers, on the other hand, argue that this time was un-billable because engine trouble caused the delays to port.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Unisina Navigation Co. v. Tauber Oil Co. (The “Unisina”) – SMA No. 3556, 27 Aug 1999

ASBATANKVOY -- WORLDSCALE -- DISPORT -- LIGHTERING -- BERTH -- FREIGHT -- Charterer Award Fixed under a contract where Worldscale terms apply when not already defined, the Vessel was chartered to discharge at three different locations. However, at one location, the Owners are claiming that because of dual operations (lightering and berthing), they should count as two separate disports which would require extra freight compensation from the Charterers.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.