Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- ARBITRATION -- TANK CLEANLINESS -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Charterer Award
Upon the Vessel’s arrival at loadport, the Charterers’ inspector rejected the Vessel due to excess rust and tank lining deterioration. The Vessel crew attempted to clean the tanks over laycan, but ultimately could not meet the inspector’s minimum standards, so the Charterers subsequently terminated the charter party. The Owners refuted the cancellation by claiming that the expected standards were unjust and began arbitration for losses.
TRUCKER STRIKE -- CONSEQUENTIAL DELAYS -- WORK SLOW-DOWN -- BURDEN OF PROOF -- Charterer Award
Due to a trucking strike at disport, the discharge operation was protracted, causing the Vessel to incur demurrage. The Charterer refuted the demurrage claim, citing that the strike was out of their control, and therefore, exempt from demurrage fees. On the other hand, Owner argued that the Charterers had not satisfied their obligation to search for alternative means of discharge.
ASBATANKVOY -- DEVIATION -- FREIGHT -- HURRICANE -- WORLDSCALE -- ACT OF GOD -- STORM -- HURRICANE -- DEVIATION COSTS -- Owner Award
After arrival in the Mississippi River for discharge, the Vessel was subsequently ordered to sail to Houston for discharge in order to avoid a hurricane. At issue is the calculation of freight and deviation costs; whether Houston constituted the Charterer’s second discharge port option as per Charterer’s Diversion Clause or did the sole disport with the Mississippi River constitute a deviation.
ASBATANKVOY -- BERTHING ORDERS -- CANCELLATION -- MITIGATE -- FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARGO -- LOST PROFITS -- Owner Award
Three days after laycan, the Charterers declared that the cargo transaction had failed and cancelled the charter. The Vessel sailed to fulfill other pre-existing contracts, and initiated arbitration to recover lost profits.
PUMP WARRANTY -- DELAY -- DISCHARGE -- INTERPRETATION -- INTEREST ON UNCONTESTED DEMURRAGE -- Owner Award
At discharge, the Vessel failed to meet the 100 PSI pump warranty, which thereby faulted the Owners for subsequent delays. Because the 100 PSI limit was not reached, the Charterers argued that any time over 24H was delay time. The Owners, on the other hand, felt that this method did not accurately interpret the clause’s definition of true Vessel underperformance delays.
BPVOY4 -- LAYTIME -- FREE PRATIQUE -- NOTICE OF READINESS CLAUSE -- PORT -- Owner Award
After the Vessel tendered NOR in the Port of New York, it took over 6H to grant free pratique—a violation to the BPVOY4’s Notice of Readiness Clause. However, the Port of New York does not formally endow free pratique, but instead views a tendered NOR as the beginning of laytime.
ASBATANKVOY -- LAYTIME -- PRORATED -- CHARTER PARTY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- PARCEL TANKER -- ARBITRATION -- Owner Award
The original Charter Party contained no stipulation on laytime rates, so in order to incentivize payment, the Owners gave a gratis prorated cost for time at port. However, when the demurrage claim became outstanding, the Owners began arbitration and removed the original prorate and pursued the claim in full.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- TERMINAL -- DEMURRAGE -- TERMINAL -- DOCK MASTER -- CARGO CONTAMINATION -- CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES -- Charterer Award
After the vessel had been loaded with separate cargos, the Charterer discovered that one of the cargos had been contaminated with another. The Owner claimed that the contamination came from the terminal and commenced arbitration for demurrage and shifting expenses caused by the contamination. The Charterer counterclaimed for costs lost material costs arguing that the contamination resulted from tank seal defects.
EXXONMOBIL VOY2000 -- PURGE -- VOYAGE ORDERS -- LOAD PORT -- CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT -- CARGO HANDLING INSTRUCTIONS -- Charterer Award
This arbitration stems from the Contract of Affreightment on ExxonMobil Voy2000 and the responsibility of nitrogen purging. In this case, when the Vessel reached the load port, the Charterers refused Vessel loading because the tanks were not purged to the cargo’s required .5% O2 level. The Owners, however, brought evidence proving that the specific purging requirements were not included in the COA or the voyage orders.
VOYAGE CHARTER PARTY -- LAYDAY -- CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- DEMURRAGE -- DEADFREIGHT -- DETENTION -- WRONGFUL CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
The Vessel arrived at loadport and tendered NOR within laycan, however the Charterer failed to supply the cargo. The Charterer, after fourteen days of expressing to the Owner that loading would begin soon, cancelled the Charter Party because of "unexpected problems." The Owner subsequently demanded compensation for damages to demurrage, deadfreight, and detention.
