Tagged: Vol. 21 No. 4

ELECTRONIC RELEASE SYSTEM (ERS) - CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (COGSA) - CONTAINERIZED GOODS - BILLS OF LADING - LOCAL AGENTS - Shipper Award An electronic release system was implemented at the MSC terminal in Antwerp, Belgium with intention to streamline processes and remove paper release notes. An electronic PIN would be provided for each container once a bill of lading was presented in order to take delivery of cargo at the terminal. However when two of the shipper’s containers were misappropriated, the parties disputed whether the carrier had met their requirement of submitting a valid “delivery order” upon receipt of the bill of lading.

GENCON 76 - DUNNAGE: OWNER’S OR CHARTERER’S RESPONSIBILITY - NOTICE OF READINESS - COMMENCEMENT OF LAYTIME - DEMURRAGE - DETENTION - Charterer award A cargo of steel H-beams were to be loaded on top of a previously loaded part cargo of rebar. Charterer and Owner could not agree as to which party should be responsible for costs and time associated with building a false deck, whether the vessel’s NOR was valid, and thus when laytime commenced counting.

REPUDIATED VOYAGE CHARTER - SMITH v M’GUIRE - THE COMPENSATORY PRINCIPLE - Owner award When the charterer wrongfully repudiated a voyage charter, an arbitration panel awarded owner damages basis the vessel’s actual earnings versus hypothetical earnings up to the conclusion of the mitigating employment despite the mitigating employment ending well after when the repudiated voyage charter would have concluded. In doing so, the arbitrators awarded owner for its losses suffered whilst returning to an area of more profitable employment. The charterer appealed.

DISPONENT OWNER CLAIMING DAMAGES FROM SHIPPER - IDENTIFICATION OF CARRIER UNDER COGEN FORM BILL OF LADING - DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPEL- IMPLIED CONTRACTS After loading a bulk cargo shipper ran into difficulties with its sales contract which the FOB buyer / charterer ultimately repudiated. At the request of the shipper the vessel was detained and waited at the load port until she eventually discharged the cargo on instruction from a local court. The disponent owner claimed damages from the shipper stating that under the bill of lading the disponent owner was the carrier. The shipper, i.e. seller under FOB terms, denied the basis of owner’s claims with the implication being that the shipper’s contract was not with the disponent owner and thus no arbitration clause existed between the disponent owner and shipper.

LOAN AGREEMENT – WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE – CORRESPONDENCE – DOES RULE APPLY – Claimant award When a Claimant requested correspondences to be admissible in evidence, Defendant objected given they were headed “Without Prejudice and Subject to Contract” and thus privileged.