Category: U.S. Maritime Cases
BUNKER SUPPLY CONTRACT – INCORRECT SULPHUR CONTENT PROVIDED – VESSEL DETOURED TO ACQUIRE PROPER FUEL – WHETHER BUNKER SUPPLIER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES – UCC VERSUS U.S. MARITIME LAW - WORKMANLIKE WARRANTY - Owner Award
The owner negotiated a contract for low sulphur fuel oil to be loaded at an agreed upon location. However the incorrect bunker fuel was supplied, preventing the vessel from traveling to a port on the voyage route. An alternate location was then chosen and the appropriate fuel was loaded. After the operation was conducted, the owners submitted a claim for damages against the bunker supplier.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT – CONSIGNEE’S LIABILITY TO CARRIER FOR DEMURRAGE/DETENTION AS SIGNER OF BILLS OF LADING – NOTIFY PARTY – ENDORSEMENT – BREACH OF CONTRACT – UNJUST ENRICHMENT – ACCOUNT STATED – Plaintiff Award The consignee failed to unload cargo from the vessel as the third party buyer was no longer in business. The cargo remained on the vessel as demurrage and detention fees accumulated. This action was brought before the court by carrier in an attempt to recover those damages from consignee basis a breach of contract by consignee, an account stated, and unjust enrichment. [dropcap]T[/dropcap]his dispute arose at the...
DISCHARGE ALLOCATION - SHORT LOADED CARGO - DRAFT SURVEYS - OWNER ACTING WITHOUT CONSENT OF CHARTERER - DETENTION - DEMURRAGE
The cargo was loaded aboard the vessel according to Charterer’s orders and in line with the initial discharge allocation. However, the shore reading and multiple draft surveys indicated a loading figure 265 MT less than the aggregate B/L figures. After sailing the load port Charterer amended the discharge port rotation as well as the discharge allocation of the cargo onboard. And after completion of operations at the first discharge port Charterer’s receiver complained that the quantity received was short ~200MT and threatened legal action if the remainder was not provided. The vessel eventually obliged and sailed for her second discharge port wherein the same situation arose. The panel majority found the Owner’s actions to be acceptable with the third arbitrator dissenting.
HURRICANE SANDY – WHETHER HURRICANE AN ACT OF GOD – WHETHER HURRICANE DAMAGE FORESEEABLE – Defendant Award
A disagreement arose between two companies when cargo was damaged by Hurricane Sandy’s storm surge. The claimant hoped to recover damages for the lost cargo. The defendant refused, citing that the storm was an Act of God and that the damage was not foreseeable.
ASBATANKVOY - UNPAID DEMURRAGE - VESSEL IDLE FOR 20 DAYS - FORCE MAJEURE - REPUDIATED CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT (COA) - Owner Award
The Charterer failed to pay demurrage on the first voyage of a two-voyage COA. On the second voyage, the Vessel sat for 20 days before the Charterer repudiated the contract by claiming force majeure because of “recent tropical storm activity” and the resulting high water content in the intended cargo.
GENCON - NO LAYCAN - CANCELLATION OF CONTRACT- FORCE MAJEURE - WHETHER PRE-PAID FREIGHT TO BE REFUNDED- FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ARBITRATORS’ ORDERS- Owner Award
Charterer and Disponent Owner agreed to transport cows from northeastern US to Turkey under a consecutive voyage charter. Before the recognized load date for the first voyage Charterer requested extensions and ultimately cancelled the charter due to a fire at the receiving facility and the Syrian civil war which saw fighting on Turkey’s border with Syria. Charterer sought to recover $600k in pre-paid freight from Owner with Owner rejecting Charterer’s claim and countering for unpaid freight and lost profit on the unperformed voyages.
ASBATANKVOY – STS TRANSFER - CONTAMINATED CARGO – HAGUE VISBY & COGSA - BURDEN OF PROOF – DEMURRAGE - FAULT OF THE VESSEL - TIME-BAR – Charterer Award
The vessel was loading LPG via a ship-to-ship transfer when it was discovered that the cargo she had loaded was contaminated by moisture. Both the charterer and the owner held each other responsible for the burden of proof. The dispute was over who was liable for the damages due to the contamination and if demurrage, detention and deviation were to be incurred. And if incurred, whether owner’s claims for same were time-barred.
CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award
Charterer claimed owner’s dry docking of the Vessel without obtaining mutual agreement for same equated to a material and repudiatory breach of the contract and subsequently refused to provide a cargo or assurances for the continuance of the charter. After waiting 66 days for the cargo and assurances owner canceled the charter and claimed for damages.
VOYAGE CHARTER – BALTIC 99 INCORRECT IN REGARDS TO CRANE TYPE – REDUCED LOAD RATE – Owner Award
At the time of fixture, the type of crane listed on the Baltic 99 form was incorrect. Charterer claimed the decision to conduct the fixture was based on the listed crane and adjusted the load and discharge rate upon which the allowed laytime was calculated based on what they believed the actual crane could handle. Owner disagreed with this change and brought the case to arbitration.
PETITION TO CONFIRM AWARD – CONSECUTIVE VOYAGE CHARTER – VESSEL DRY DOCKED WITHOUT MUTUAL AGREEMENT - IN TURN CARGO NOT PROVIDED – MATERIAL & REPUDIATORY BREACH – Owner Award
Owner petitioned to confirm an earlier arbitration award in which the arbitrators held that the Charterer had breached the Charter by not providing cargo for the Vessel. Charterer argued that the arbitrators had acted with complete disregard of past precedent in assessing damages against them and filed a cross-motion to vacate the award.
