Tagged: Vol. 1 No. 1

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Vayudoot, SMA No. 3078. (ASBATANKVOY, ref. Special Provisions)

Although the charter party stipulated that the Vessel take necessary measures to arrive on time, the Vessel was delayed at loadport due to a congested berth and arrived to disport on demurrage. Afterwards, the Owners filed a demurrage claim for the voyage, but neglected to include the required heating log. The Charterers argued that the missing heating log and an alleged failure to meet voyage provisions for arrival illegitimizes the claim.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Brage Vibeke, SMA No. 3073. (ASBATANKVOY, ref. Clause 18, Part II)

After an initial tank failure and a subsequent cleaning, the Vessel's tanks were approved by the Charterer's inspector. But upon further samples taken, the inspector retracted his approval and rejected the tanks because of high water content in the loaded cargo. The Charterer requested that the Vessel sail without the loading balance of cargo and the Owners submitted a claim for demurrage and wrongful cancellation.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Mountain Blossom, SMA No. 3067SP. (ASBATANKVOY, ref. Clauses 6 & 9, Part II)

The Charterer's nominated berth was occupied upon the Vessel's arrival and 4H after tendering NOR, the Port Authority closed the channel due to fog and thereby prohibiting the berthed vessel to leave. The Owner argued that the Charterer had breached the Charter Party clause stipulating a berth reachable upon arrival and claimed the delays as laytime.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Lagoven Paria, SMA No. 3052. (ASBATANKVOY, ref. Clause 9, Part II)

The Owner's Pilot gave the Master erroneous information stating that the Vessel was unable to berth due to the channel's restrictive width. Upon further investigation, the Master deemed the Vessel capable of proceeding from anchorage and the Owner subsequently claimed these delays as demurrage.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Gogo Regal, SMA No. 3093. (ASBA II, ref. Clause 7a)

When the cast iron Vessel arrived at loadport, the loading terminal prohibited its berthing basis the Vessel's poor condition and non-stainless steel manifold. So the Vessel was forced to load at anchorage by barge, thereby putting the Vessel on demurrage. And upon Vessel arrival at disport, the inspection revealed that the cargo was off-color for which the despondent receivers arrested the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.

Archive / U.S. Maritime Cases

Francesca Foresi, SMA No. 3080. (ASBATANKVOY, ref. Clause 18)

The Owners began arbitration to recover losses incurred by two separate instances of demurrage over the course of the Vessel"'"s chartered voyage. At loadport, the Vessel was forced to wait an additional four days to berth, and upon berthing, failed tank inspection and had to be cleaned for an extra six days. And at disport, daytime-restricted unloading to trucks caused further delays for the Vessel.
To access this content, you must either Log In or Subscribe.