Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
ASBATANKVOY -- DEADLINE MISSED FOR LIFTING SUBJECTS -- DAMAGES FOR HIGHER FREIGHT ON SUBSTITUTE CHARTER -- Owner Award
Incurred during a volatile and rising market, this dispute hinges on whether Charterer can prove subjects were lifted prior to the deadline. As Charterer had no written proof subjects had been lifted and with Charterer’s broker claiming subjects were lifted prior to the deadline and Owner’s broker claiming time had run out, the Panel weighed various testimony concluding that Charterer did not fulfill their burden.
ASBATANKVOY -- PRODUCTION PROBLEM -- INABILITY TO PROVIDE CARGO -- FORCE MAJEURE -- DEADFREIGHT -- Owner Award
When problems in the plant caused the supplier to fail to provide a cargo of CAN, Charterer notified Owner and attempted to locate an alternative supply. A week later when it was apparent additional cargo would not be located, Charterer formally declared force majeure. In awarding Owner deadfreight, the Panel majority held that Charterer had failed to promptly provide the force majeure notice, failed to alert Owner as to the extent or duration of the delay (as contractually required), and failed to prevent or minimize the effects of the force majeure event.
GENCON -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- REPUDIATION OF CHARTER -- DETENTION -- DAMAGES -- Owner Award
Having awaited cargo at the load port for 40 days without proper assurance that same was forthcoming, Owner repudiated the Charter Party and fixed a voyage with another Charterer to mitigate damages. The Panel awarded Owner the freight differential between the repudiated Charter and the mitigating Charter and 40 days of detention at the demurrage rate. Owner’s claims for bottom cleaning, time loss due to slow steaming and over consumption of bunkers on the mitigating voyage, all allegedly due to bottom fouling itself a result of the prolonged stay at load port, failed due to a general lack of documentation.
SALES CONTRACT -- FORCE MAJEURE -- TERMINAL EXPLOSION AND FIRE -- NEGLIGENCE -- Seller Award
In the earlier Partial Final Award, SMA No. 4073, the Panel determined Buyer was responsible for cargo in shoretanks destroyed by an explosion whilst Vessel was discharging. The Panel held off in determining whether Buyer’s force majeure defense applied to the cargo remaining onboard the Vessel until after the cause of the explosion was determined. In this Final Award, SMA No. 4083, the Panel concluded that the cause of the explosion was due to human negligence and, as such, is not within the scope of force majeure. Buyer is responsible for the extra expense in disposing of remaining product.
FOSFO -- HAZARDOUS CARGO -- REPUDIATION OF CHARTER PARTY -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- Owner Award
Vessel’s inoperable smoke detection system caused Charterer to refuse to load cargo of bulk sulphur citing OSHA’s claiming the cargo to be hazardous (subsequently requiring a smoke detector system) despite IMO, SOLAS, USCG, Charterer’s supplier and LLOYD’s deeming the cargo to not be hazardous nor requiring the Vessel to have smoke detectors. Owner repudiated the charter and was awarded deadfreight (less savings from not performing the voyage). Owner was not awarded detention basis an express term stipulating damages for non-performance will be "proven damages not exceeding the estimated amount of freight." Panel had already awarded the value of the freight.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- DEMURRAGE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO DELAYS -- Owner Award
The first, second, and third foot samples of ULSD cargo were off-spec with respect to flashpoint (a key commercial criterion for this cargo) resulting in offloading and further Vessel cleaning. Although there was a dedicated line from the shore tank to the terminal manifold, an additive was injected at the terminal manifold (from bulk containers and drums) which could have affected the ULSD flashpoint. Thus, Charterer failed in proving by a preponderance of credible evidence that the Vessel’s tanks were the cause of the cargo damage. Furthermore, the burden is on the Charterer to prove that the Vessel did not exercise due diligence in tank preparation which he failed to do.
SALES CONTRACT -- FORCE MAJEURE -- EXPLOSION -- CUSTODY TRANSFER -- DEMURRAGE -- Partial Final Seller Award
During discharge, an apparent shoretank leak at Buyer's facility caused an explosion which destroyed storage tanks inclusive of cargo being discharged and cargo discharged during previous deliveries not yet paid for by Buyer. The Buyer declared force majeure and contends that it is excused from paying for all cargo destroyed in the shoretanks, cargo remaining onboard the Cape Bruny yet to be discharged and the resultant demurrage.
BALTIMORE BERTH GRAIN CP -- DESPATCH -- COMMENCEMENT OF DETENTION -- EXPIRATION OF LAYTIME -- Charterer Award
After loading, Charterer gave the Vessel orders to wait at the loadport until ordered to sail. The Vessel waited 22 days. At the heart of the dispute was the time at which laytime expired and detention began. Charterer argued that it is entitled to the benefit of the total load laytime allowance (calculated basis the maximum cargo volume negotiated for the freight paid) prior to accruing detention.
GENCON -- RIGHT TO CANCEL -- VALID NOTICE OF READINESS -- ARRIVED SHIP -- WHETHER AGENT WAS SERVANT OF CHARTERER OR OWNER -- CALCULATION OF DAMAGES -- Charterer Award
Due to miscommunications with the Agent, the Vessel did not file a timely 96-hour Notice of Arrival to the loadport and was precluded from berthing when ordered to do so. As the Vessel did not gain clearance until after the cancelling date, Charterer cancelled the fixture. In its ruling, the Panel had to consider which party bore responsibility for the Agent's actions, whether the Vessel's NOR was valid, and if the Vessel was "in all respects" ready to load.
EXXONMOBILVOY 2000 -- DRAFT RESTRICTIONS -- LIGHTERAGE EXPENSES -- PROMISE TO PAY -- SAFE BERTH -- TIME BAR -- Charterer Award
The Master was instructed to load the Vessel to meet a brackish water draft to safely transit the channel in the discharge port, but used an incorrect factor to make his calculations. On arrival, the Vessel's draft was too deep and she had to be lightered in order to proceed to the discharge berth. The Panel was asked to determine whether the discharge berth was a "safe berth" and decide which party was responsible for lighterage delays and costs. This dispute also addressed whether a late-presented claim could be time-barred considering the respondent had initially promised to pay.
