Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
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.
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.
ASBATANKVOY -- CHARTER PARTY -- ARBITRATION -- CANCELLATION -- Owner Award
The Owners had conceded that they wrongfully cancelled the charter, but arbitration was necessary to appropriate the amount of damages due the Charterers.
ASBATANKVOY -- LOADPORT -- TERMINAL -- BERTH -- CHANNEL -- GROUNDING -- DEADFREIGHT -- PORT -- NOR -- Charterer Award
After the Owners’ rejection of the original loadport terminal, the berth was moved to Paktank Richmond at the Owners’ request. However, the Vessel grounded in the berth’s channel due to an incorrect draft publication. The Owners argued that the Charterers did not provide a safe berth for the Vessel and demanded deadfreight compensation, while the Charterers maintained that the Owners nominated the new port and are therefore responsible for any problems resulting from the change.
ASBATANKVOY -- DISPORT -- LIGHTER -- CARGO -- DRAFT -- DEMURRAGE -- VOYAGE -- Charterer Award
In order to arrive at the designated disport, the Vessel needed to lighter her cargo to meet the maximum transit draft. But due to five different "errors of judgment" by the Vessel’s Master, The Charterer demanded that the Owner both reimburse the lightering expenses and drastically reduce the voyage’s demurrage claim.
ASBATANKVOY -- VOYAGE -- PORT -- DOCK -- BERTH -- SPEED WARRANTY -- Charterer Award
This voyage’s fixed discharge port was a Citgo dock where berthing priority was given to other Citgo vessels. So when the Vessel failed to meet the minimum speed warranty (and therefore missed laycan), she lost her place in line for berth to a Citgo ship. When billed for this delay, the Charterers contend that they should be exempt from invoicing because if the Owner had followed the speed warranty, the berth would have been free upon arrival.
ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- ARBITRATION -- TUGBOAT -- DEMURRAGE -- BERTH -- INTEREST -- Owner Award
This arbitration covers several key issues such as tank testing expenses at berth, dock labor charges not related to cargo carriage, tug standby costs, demurrage at berth, and the interest rate for delayed payment.
ASBATANKVOY -- ARBITRATION -- VOYAGE -- DEMURRAGE -- LOADPORT -- LAYTIME -- MOORING -- DISPORT -- ACT OF GOD -- Charterer Award
This arbitration centers upon two separate instances during voyage where the Vessel allegedly accrued demurrage. At the loadport, the Owners counted laytime until the Vessel completed unmooring instead of up to the traditional "hoses off." The other argument was over laytime calculations at disport when adverse weather temporarily halted discharge.
ASBATANKVOY -- TERMINAL -- PUMP WARRANTY -- PART CARGO -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award
Because of terminal pump limitations for part cargoes, the Vessel could not satisfy the pump warranty stipulated in the charter party. The Owners then subsequently requested to calculate the pump credit by the difference between the theoretical time at 100 PSI against the actual time.
VEGOILVOY -- PORT -- CARGO -- CUSTOMS -- SHORE TANK -- CUSTOMS -- Owner Award
As is customary discharge procedure for the port, the Owners discharged cargo under customs control. However, the Charterers found the shore tank empty and demanded reimbursement for the improper discharge of cargo to customs officials.
