Category: Archive

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Stolt Tankers Inc. (The “Stolt Resolute”) – SMA No. 3482, 10 Nov 1998

CARGO -- SAMPLE -- RECONDITIONING -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award After sampling the cargo and finding it off spec, the Receiver’s insurance company demanded that the Owner pay for cargo reconditioning. The Owner argued that, upon delivery, the cargo was more pure than the Receiver’s average stock and counterclaimed for punitive cleaning damages.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Gaschem Tankers v. Montpelier Trading, Inc. (The “Elbegas”) – SMA No. 3484, 20 Nov 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- INTEREST -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award The Charterers agreed to the Owners’ demurrage invoice; however, they failed to deliver payment over the course of several months. The Owners began arbitration to collect demurrage plus interest.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Texaco International Trader, Inc. v. Sunoco Overseas, Inc. (The “Proof Trader”) – SMA No. 3485, 30 Oct 1998

TEXACOVOY 94 -- LOADPORT -- MANIFOLD -- SALES AGREEMENT -- CANCELLATION -- ARBITRATION -- Seller Award The Vessel had been nominated by the Buyer and subsequently accepted by the Seller. But upon arrival to loadport, the placement of the Vessel’s manifolds made loading impossible and the Vessel was summarily rejected by the Seller. The Buyer claimed that the Seller breached the sales agreement by not rejecting the Vessel in a timely matter and began arbitration to recover cancellation expenses.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Windsor Investment Corp. v. Stolt Tankers, Inc. (The “Marilee”) – SMA No. 3487, 30 Nov 1998

SHELLTIME 3 -- TIME CHARTER -- OFF-HIRE -- TANKS -- Owner Award Throughout the life of the time charter, the Vessel was declared off-hire on numerous occasions for tank wall cleaning purposes. And at the end of the contract, the Charterers billed the Owners for the entirety of the time spent off-hire plus the cost of the tank cleaning chemicals.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

US Titan, Inc. v. Lagoven SA (The “Da Qing 88”) – SMA No. 3458, 26 Jun 1998

ASBA II -- PORT -- AGENT -- BERTH -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- Charterer Award The Vessel was notified by her agents that she would likely be able to berth upon arrival; however, the terminal unexpectedly berthed another vessel out of turn and forced the Vessel to wait an additional 30H for a free berth. When the Owners billed this as demurrage, the Charterers argued that they were not responsible for the terminal’s mix-up and define this situation as "beyond their control."
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. Pacific Refining Co. (The “Crowley Barge 450-11”) – SMA No. 3466, 30 Jun 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- PART CARGO -- TANKERMEN -- BARGE -- CARGO -- TERMINAL -- PIPELINE -- ARBITRATION -- CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award The Vessel was to be loaded with three separate part cargoes, however the tankermen failed to switch the barge tanks in time to accommodate the cargo changeover in the terminal’s pipeline. The Owner began arbitration to recover damages from the resulting cargo mixing and contamination.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bryggen Shipping & Trading AS v. Bramber Corp., BVI (The “Flamenco”) – SMA No. 3477, 20 Oct 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- LAYCAN -- LOADPORT -- PART CARGO -- LOI -- BILL OF LADING -- Charterer Award The Vessel missed her laycan at loadport, but due to the Owners’ misrepresented ETA for the last layday, the Charterers were not aware of any possible delay until after the cancellation date. And further delays were introduced after part cargo storage confusion and the resulting Charterers’ refusal to deliver an LOI until new Bills of Lading were written to fix the confusion. Likewise, the Owners refused to unload until the time spent waiting for LOI was compensated.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Bergesen DY ASA v. Bayoil SA (The “Berge Bragd”) – SMA No. 3478, 3 Nov 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- BUNKER -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Owner Award Because of the falling market prices for oil, the Charterer ordered the Vessel to proceed directly to disport after loading and to exercise a "high speed" option that would make her minimum speed 15 knots. However, without a clear discharge program, the Owner decided to divert the Vessel in order to re-stock bunkers. And when billed for the subsequent demurrage and high speed premium, the Charterers refused to pay and counterclaimed for lost profits from a delayed delivery.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Chembulk Trading, Inc. v. Vinmar International, Ltd. (The “Chembulk Rotterdam”) – SMA No. 3443, 28 Apr 1998

ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- ALL-FAST -- TYPHOON -- BERTH -- ACT OF GOD -- DEMURRAGE -- CHARTER PARTY -- LAYTIME -- Charterer Award Although the Vessel was all-fast at disport, a typhoon warning stopped all discharge and forced the Vessel off the berth. The Charterers claim that this time should be considered a weather induced delay and be billed only at half the demurrage rate as per the charter party clause. The Owners argued that because the allotted laytime had not expired, the half-demurrage rate should not apply.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Novorossiysk Shipping Co. v. Stinnes Interoil AG (The “Akademik Vereschagin”) – SMA No. 3445, 8 May 1998

EXXONVOY 90 -- LOADPORT -- LAYCAN -- ETA -- DEMURRAGE -- NOR -- Owner Award En route to loadport, the Charterers instructed the Vessel to not tender her NOR until 0700 on the first day of laycan. However, the Owners communicated an ETA change to 0001 with no protest from the Charterers and thereby formally arrived at that time. But later, the Charterers contend that they were not notified of any arrival change and are therefore exempt from demurrage between the NOR tender and the originally agreed ETA.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.