Category: English Maritime Cases
SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE - IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award
When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.
ESTABLISHING MARKET VALUE - TORT OF CONVERSION - DAMAGES - SUPPLY CHAIN - Buyer Award
While the Vessel was en route to the discharge port, the Vessel was withdrawn from the Contract Carriers’ service when they defaulted on hire and the cargo of river sand onboard was sold to mitigate the Owners’ losses. However, the Buyer argued that this constituted a tort of conversion and filed for damages against the Contract Carriers and the Owners basis an alleged market price of the sand.
VESSEL DAMAGED BY STEVEDORES – WHETHER 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED BY OWNER – COMPETING CLAUSES WITHIN FIXTURE - Owner Award
The vessel sustained damage during the loading and discharging of a cargo of logs Owner requested that the charterer pay for the repairs per 2 clauses included in the charter party. However, relying upon a 3rd clause Charterers believed owner was required to provide notice within 24 hours of the damage and thus refused to pay.
GENCON – LENGTHY LOAD PORT DELAYS – DEMURRAGE -- VALIDITY OF BILLS OF LADING – CARGO LIEN – Owner Award
In this dispute significant load port delays led to the Owner and Charterer negotiating an addendum including supplemental compensation. Charterer did not establish a line of credit on time with Owner subsequently deeming the Charterer’s agents’ bills of lading invalid and exercised a lien on the cargo for the outstanding demurrage.
COLLISION -- TWO-YEAR LIMITATION TO COMMENCE PROCEEDINGS -- EXTENSION REQUESTED -- Defendant award
A dispute arose after two vessels collided. In the course of negotiations, the Claimant issued an application for an extension to commence proceedings, but only after the expiration of a two-year limitation for claims filing passed. At issue was whether the Claimant’s extension request was reasonable.
TRIP CHARTER – BERTHING DELAY – VESSEL GROUNDING – SAFE BERTH -- BUNKER CONSUMPTION – CHARTERER’S RIGHT TO ACCESS SHIP’S GENERATORS -- Partial Owner Award
In this dispute, Owner claimed damages for survey costs and delay in discharge due to an insufficient draft at the berth causing the vessel to touch bottom. Charterers counterclaimed for overpaid bunkers and wanted compensation for denied access to the vessel’s generators to power shore grabs.
DEMURRAGE -- MISSING DOCUMENTS – OWNER’S CLAIM NOT PROVIDED – TIME BAR -- Buyer Award
This dispute centers on determining the documents considered necessary to file a valid claim in order to avoid a time bar. In this case the seller was requesting demurrage payment while the buyer refused believing the claim had received a time bar.
NYPE -- TIME CHARTER -- VESSEL COLLISION WITH BERTH – DELAYED BERTHING AT NEXT PORT – WHEN IS VESSEL CONSIDERED OFF-HIRE – WHETHER COLLISION PREVENTED CHARTERERS FROM BRINGING CLAIMS AGAINST SUB-CHARTERERS -- Owner Award
In this dispute the vessel had a collision with the berth at the first load port sustaining damage to one of its holds. At the following load port the points of contention were over the time period the vessel was considered off-hire, and what damages the charterers were owed due to the inability to bring claims against their sub-charterers.
BPVOY4 -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME BAR -- FREE PRATIQUE -- WHETHER ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PRESENTED WITH CLAIM -- Charterer Award
This dispute concerns demurrage incurred due to delays at both ports of loading and discharge. Certain documents required by the charterparty, based on the BPVOY4 form, had not been submitted within the 90-day limit and Charterers were attempting a time bar defense.
FORCE MAJEURE -- LOADING OF BAUXITE CAUSING UNAVOIDABLE DUST -- SUSPENSION OF LOADING ORDERED BY PORT AUTHORITY -- WHETHER CHARTERERS LIABLE FOR DELAY -- Owner Award
This dispute arose under a contract of carriage of a sepiolite cargo from “1-2 load berth chop always afloat Santander” to a UK port. Charterer asserted that the force majeure clause in the governing contract denied any Owner’s claim in the form of demurrage, or alternatively, damages, as a result of delays caused by the port authority’s suspension of loading operations.
