Tagged: Apr/Jun 1998

EXXONVOY 90 -- DISPORT -- CHARTER PARTY -- PUMP WARRANTY -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- PORT -- Charterer Award While discharging at the first of two disports, the Vessel failed to meet the charter party’s pump warranty. After the voyage, the Owners presented an adjusted demurrage claim that excluded laytime while not meeting the pump warranty at the first port. The Charterers, however, argued that no laytime at discharge after breaching the warranty, including laytime at the second port, can be counted as demurrage.

WARSHIPOILVOY -- CARGO -- DEMURRAGE -- DISPORT -- OFFSHORE STORAGE -- LOADPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- Charterer Award Because the cargo was contaminated, the Charterers used the Vessel as an offshore storage facility while filtering the cargo into a useful form. The Owners argue that contamination came from the loadport’s inferior steel railcars, and therefore claim this extensive delay at disport as demurrage. The Charterers contended that the disport samples prove that the contamination occurred on the Vessel and counterclaimed for cargo damages.

ASBATANKVOY -- DEMURRAGE -- TIME-BAR -- BROKER -- CHARTER PARTY -- Charterer Award The Owners submitted a demurrage invoice within the 90-day time-bar, however, the Charterers contested its completeness upon submission. The Owners subsequently resubmitted the full claim to the broker on the last day of the time-bar, which they claim satisfies the charter party.

ASBATANKVOY -- CARGO -- DISPORT -- CONTAMINATION -- DEMURRAGE -- LAYTIME -- HANDLING COSTS -- Owner Award Because the cargo was found to be off spec at disport, the Charterers accepted a US$100,000 settlement for the contamination. In addition to the settlement, the Owners submitted a demurrage claim for additional laytime at disport. However, the Charterers counterclaimed for excess handling costs and rejected the Owner’s invoice based on the cargo contamination and the Vessel’s inoperative radar.