Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
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.
ASBATANKVOY -- NOTICE OF READINESS PRIOR COMMENCEMENT OF LAYDAYS -- USCG COC INSPECTION -- CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION -- Owner Award
The Vessel arrived and tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR) just prior to the commencement of laydays, but waited several days because the port was closed due to a hurricane. On berthing, the Vessel had to obtain a Certificate of Compliance (COC) before any loading operations could begin. Charterer refuted Owner's demurrage claim, declaring that the Notice of Readiness (NOR) was invalid as the NOR was tendered prematurely (prior to the laydays) and Vessel was not legally ready to load without the COC. The arbitrator reviews the charter terms and facts to determine the validity of NOR and the commencement of laytime.
ASBATANKVOY -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
Owner seeks recovery of demurrage encompassing over 17 days that the Vessel spent awaiting cargo at the loadport which, despite Charterer’s repeated promises, the cargo was never forthcoming causing Owner to terminate the fixture. The Panel rules on a remedy for Owner's lost time.
ASBATANKVOY -- FORCE MAJEURE -- HURRICANE -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- DUE DILIGENCE -- Seller Award
The CFR Buyer declared force majeure after its Pasadena, TX facility was struck by Hurricane Ike and cancelled one of two CFR contracts with the Seller. The dispute concerns whether the event constituted force majeure within the context of the sales contract, whether the sales contract allowed Buyer to cancel the contract and whether Buyer's steps to restore operations at its facility constituted the due diligence required.
ASBATANKVOY -- WHETHER DEMURRAGE IS PAYABLE AFTER LOADING -- REVERSIBLE LAYTIME -- LATE ARRIVAL AT DISPORT -- DAMAGES -- Partial Charterer Award
With the Vessel arriving at the disport approximately 72 days later than projected for a customary 14-day voyage, the Charterer incurred $103K demurrage on two barges that were on standby to receive the cargo. After the Vessel arrived, Owner subsequently refused to discharge the cargo until Charterer remitted loadport demurrage. The issues decided by the Panel include liability of consequential barge demurrage and whether the Owner is entitled to collect demurrage prior to discharging when the fixture stipulates "reversible laytime".
GENCON -- FORCE MAJEURE – DEMURRAGE -- HURRICANE -- BUNKERING -- "ARRIVED SHIP" NOR -- WIPON -- NOR ACCEPTED WITHIN OFFICE HOURS -- Owner Award
The Vessel arrived EOSP to discharge 179 miles up the Mississippi River shortly after the passage of Hurricane Gustav through the area which resulted in the closure of the river and Charterer’s terminal. Shortly thereafter, an upriver section of the river re-opened to traffic, but a draft restriction at the mouth of the river and berth congestion prevented the Vessel from proceeding to the discharge berth. Owner started laytime once the discharge berth re-opened following the hurricane. Conversely, Charterer rejected all waiting time basis the Agent’s SOF remark that the River was closed to navigation during presumably much or all of the waiting time; and, Charterer held that the Vessel was not an arrived ship when NOR was tendered because she later stopped her upriver transit to take on bunkers. Whilst bunkering, Charterer’s berth was unavailable.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- COGSA -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Owner Award
After discovering that one of its cargo was contaminated by another following a simultaneous discharge, Charterer alleged the contamination occurred during discharge due to leakage or a faulty valve lineup onbard the Vessel. In this award, the Panel reconstructs the course of events, sampling procedures and piping systems onboard and ashore to determine if Charterer has met their burden of proof that contamination was the fault of the Vessel.
COMETALS PRO FORMA CP -- SAFE BERTH WARRANTY -- VESSEL SUITABILITY -- BERTH RESTRICTIONS – IMPROPER CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
At issue is whether the Charterer improperly canceled the charter party. The fixture stipulated the discharge as "one safe berth" and when the Receiver at the intended berth rejected the Vessel as being unsuitable (taking into consideration the size of the terminal’s grabs relative to the size of the Vessel’s hatch openings), the Charterer canceled the fixture claiming that the Owner failed in providing a suitable vessel thereby frustrating the commercial purpose of the charter.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO SEGREGATION -- WITHIN VESSEL'S NATURAL SEGREGATION ("WVNS") -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- DEADFREIGHT -- STOWAGE -- LOI -- REFUSED TO LOAD -- Owner Award
The Panel was asked to determine the Charterer's liabilily where the charter party expressly defines the Vessel’s stowage capacity and the cargo requirement as "Min 38,000 MT, Max 4 grade(s) WVNS" (within Vessel’s natural segregation). Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight if the Owner refuses to load a portion of 2 of the nominated 3 parcels because it would be necessary to load through a single-valve segregation? Is the Charterer liable for deadfreight because they refused to sign Owner’s Letter of Indemnity (relieving Owner of risk of cross-contamination) which would have permitted Owner to load the full nomination? The Panel explains their decision in this award.
