Tagged: Vol. 21 No. 4

SALES CONTRACT – CRUDE OIL – EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE – FULL TRADING NAME NOT LISTED IN CORRESPONDENCE - IS CONTRACT BINDING – Claimant Award When buyer’s buyer rejected 630K bbls of crude oil as it was blended rather than being from a sole well, buyer maintained no binding contract existed between seller and buyer. Seller subsequently pressed for damages under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, Sections 50(2) and (3) basis buyer’s unlawful repudiation. In addition to maintaining no binding contract existed, buyer in turn rejected the claim for damages under the auspices of Clause 32.1 of BP 2007 GT&Cs for CFR Sales.

ESTABLISHING MARKET VALUE - TORT OF CONVERSION - DAMAGES - SUPPLY CHAIN - Buyer Award While the Vessel was en route to the discharge port, the Vessel was withdrawn from the Contract Carriers’ service when they defaulted on hire and the cargo of river sand onboard was sold to mitigate the Owners’ losses. However, the Buyer argued that this constituted a tort of conversion and filed for damages against the Contract Carriers and the Owners basis an alleged market price of the sand.

VESSEL DAMAGED BY STEVEDORES – WHETHER 24 HOURS NOTICE REQUIRED BY OWNER – COMPETING CLAUSES WITHIN FIXTURE - Owner Award The vessel sustained damage during the loading and discharging of a cargo of logs Owner requested that the charterer pay for the repairs per 2 clauses included in the charter party. However, relying upon a 3rd clause Charterers believed owner was required to provide notice within 24 hours of the damage and thus refused to pay.