DEMURRAGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY FORM – NOTICE OF READINESS – NORT VIA EMAIL
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended Asbatankvoy form. After completion of the voyage, the owner submitted a claim for demurrage, however the charterer argued the notice of readiness at the discharge port was invalid because it was tendered via email. Charterer held time should start counting when discharge commenced.
BREACH BY CHARTERER – EXCESS BUNKERS – REDELIVERY NOTICE – NYPE 1946 – QUANTIFICATION OF LOSS – FIXTURE RECAP
A vessel was chartered by a fixture recap incorporating the terms of an amended NYPE 1946 form. Charterer delivered the vessel back to her owner with excess bunkers and insufficient redelivery notices. Arbitration began to quantify the loss due to the two admitted charter breaches. The charterer admitted to the breaches of the charter, but claimed that the term “ABT” in the contract should offer them extra allowances in terms of the excess bunkers. The owner claimed that with sufficient redelivery notice they could have found alternative employment for the vessel.
ADDITIONAL DISCHARGE BERTH – VEGOILVOY FORM – DURESS – TIME BAR – SPECIAL AGREEMENT – PORT LIMITS – DEMURRAGE – JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL – WAR RISK
A vessel was chartered on a standard Vegoilvoy for transport of soybean oil from Argentine to “1 SP/1SB BIK or BANDAR ABBAS [Iran] in CHOPT.” Charterer instructed the vessel to anchor outside port limits with higher war risk premium, before shifting to berth. The charterer then required a second berthing that was not contractually agreed upon. The owner offered an alternative “special agreement” with strict stipulations. The charterer claimed that they agreed to the stipulations and costs under duress and refused to remit payment.
TIME TRIP CHARTERPARTY – AMENDED NYPE 93– LEGAL FEES – DEVIATION CLAUSE – BUNKERS – CREW CHANGE – WEATHER DELAY
A vessel was chartered for a 25-30 day period to load at a port in the Sea of Japan and discharge at a port in the South China Sea. The parties agreed the vessel would deviate to Hongai, Vietnam for a crew change. After leaving Hongai, the vessel encountered bad weather, resulting in a 1.05 day delay. The charterer claimed the weather delay would not have occurred if the vessel had made a direct journey. The owner claimed the vessel was on hire at the time of the weather delay.
COVID-19 – QUARANTINE -OFF HIRE- HEALTH AUTHORITY – AVIAN FLU – AMENDED NYPE – TIME CHARTER
The subject vessel was chartered on an amended NYPE form to load in South America then discharge and redeliver in the Far East. When the vessel arrived at the load port, health authorities immediately quarantined the ship due to the bosun testing positive for COVID-19. The owner claimed a balance of hire of $275,108 for the quarantine period and delay. The charterer claimed that the vessel was off hire during the quarantine period and counterclaimed for damages due to the crew’s history before delivery.
ELECTRICAL FAILURE – OFF HIRE – REPUDIATORY BREACH – EARLY TERMINATION
An electrical failure occurred on a vessel during a charter period. Both owner and charterer filed claims for the balance of the time spent fixing the issue.The charterer claimed that the vessel was off hire after the breakdown, because she could no longer perform the tasks they required. The owner claimed that the vessel was ready to perform the services that were initially instructed, and that the charterer was in breach of the charterparty.
NYPE FORM 1946 – BREACH OF CHARTER – PERFORMANCE WARRANTY – SPEED AND CONSUMPTION CLAIM – WEATHER DISCREPANCY – WEATHER ROUTING COMPANY
A single-deck geared bulk carrier was chartered on an NYPE 1946 form for a one-time charter trip to transport soya bean meal (SBM) from Argentina to Cuba. The voyage was estimated to take roughly 55 days. The charterer employed a weather routing company (WRC) to monitor the vessel for the contract period. Based on the WRC data, a performance dispute arose with the charterer claiming $ 78,489.47 off-hire and excessive bunker consumption. The owner asserted the WRC data was not collected nor calculated per charter party provisions.
CONTRACT OF SALE – FAILED NEGOTIATIONS – CONCLUSION OF CONTRACT – POOR QUALITY OF CRUDE OIL – DAMAGES – DEMURRAGE – SALE OF GOODS ACT 1979, SECTION 53
In an April 2019 contract of sale for Russian crude oil, Glencore agreed to sell 100,000 mt +/- ten percent to BPOI. Email correspondence between the two companies indicated the contract was confirmed; however, the parties disagreed on whether the governing terms included the Glencore Sales Contract, which specifically required the loading terminal certificate of quality to be conclusive. The cargo was sold and resold multiple times between BPOI and its affiliated companies, and upon final discharge, BPOI sample tests indicated organic chlorides contaminated the cargo. BPOI claimed damages for the loss of cargo value, storage and transportation costs of the contaminated oil, cargo volume losses, and demurrage paid on other vessels due to the delay.
DEMURRAGE – TIME BAR – FAILURE TO PROVIDE ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF DISCHARGE – AMENDED ASBATANKVOY
Tricon Energy contracted the “MTM HONG KONG” under an amended ASBATANKVOY charter to deliver cargo from Antwerp, Belgium, to Houston, Texas. As a result of delays at the load and discharge ports, the owners, MTM Trading, filed a $56K claim for demurrage. Charterer claimed the owner had failed to provide all documentation within the 90-day period, specifically the bills of lading, so the claim was time-barred. The owner took the case to arbitration, and the claim was upheld. Charterer appealed to the High Court.
CONTRACT OF AFFREIGHTMENT – FAILURE TO HONOR MINIMUM QUANTITY OF CARGO CONTRACT – LOSS OF PROFITS – TRANSFERRED LOSS PRINCIPLE
Palmali sought US$1.9 billion in damages from Litasco under a long-term contract of affreightment (COA). Palmali contended the COA gave it exclusive rights to carry oil products for Litasco between multiple ports in the Caspian Sea, Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Further, Palmali asserted the COA guaranteed Litasco would ship a minimum quantity of 400,000 MT (the Minimum Quantity Obligation), with a total monthly volume of 700,000 MT/month.
More
