• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Navigation and Port Research Conference
• /
• 2016.05a
• /
• pp.237-238
• /
• 2016

해운선사들은 IMO를 비롯한 많은 연구단체에서 제시하고 있는 에너지 효율성 개선방안을 기반으로 선사의 실정과 유가의 등락 상황에 따라 투자환수(payback) 기간을 고려하여 에너지 효율성 개선방안을 결정하고 있다. 그러나 저유가 시대에서는 갈수록 투자환수 기간이 늘어나고 있어 현존 운항선에 대한 레트로피트(Retrofit)는 극히 1~2년 내 투자비용 회수가 가능한 항목에 국한되는 경향이다. 특히 용선 선박의 경우 설비의 투자를 통한 에너지 효율성 개선은 용선계약 특성상 이해관계 및 인센티브 차이로 인하여 매우 어려운.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel's owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2005

Every time charter must have a final terminal date, that is a date by which the charterer is contractually obliged to redeliver the vessel. Where the law implies a margin or tolerance beyond an expiry date stipulated in the charter party, the final terminal date comes at the end of such implied extension. When the parties have agreed in the charter party on the margin or tolerance to be allowed, the final terminal date comes at the end of such agreed period. But the nature of a time charter is that the charter is for a finite period of time and when the final terminal date arrives the charterer is contractually bound to redeliver the vessel to the owner References to delivery and redelivery are strictly inaccurate since the vessel never leaves the possession of the shipowner, but the expression are conventionally used to describe the time when the period of the charter begins and ends. The legitimacy or otherwise of what is to be regarded as a vessel's final voyage must be judged at the time when the charterers give an order for the vessel to carry out the voyage in question, and then by reference to what they order her to do. The purpose of this paper aims to analyse cases on the final voyage of time charter, and specially to explore implications of the final voyage in time charter through the Gregos case.

• Journal of the Korean Society of Marine Environment & Safety
• /
• v.28 no.6
• /
• pp.946-954
• /
• 2022

More than half of barges have been surveyed and designated as an "unmanned barge". The main advantage of the unmanned barge is that it can carry more cargo equivalent to 25 percent of freeboard compared to that of a manned barge. In contrast, it needs an onboard crew barge because the bargeman is in charge of several tasks during sailing such as mooring or unmooring barges to or from a wharf, dropping and heaving up an anchor and turning on and of navigational lights and shapes. The instant recognition is that a tug assume the responsibility of operating a barge; however, different situations exist in which the shipper, as the operator of the barge, hires a tug. Although a tug might be a carrier of a barge under a specific contract, the master of the tug should fulfill his duty to complete its voyage. Most masters are not provided with the particulars of a barge and the information regarding the bargemen onboard, which is believed not to respect the master's authority and lead to an unintended violation of relevant laws. This paper presents three recommendations for resolving these issues: the policy approach for changing unmanned barges to manned barges, issuing a minimum safe manning certificate, and providing the master of tug information on the barge and the crew onboard. Thus, the proposed approach can be expected to improve the crew's working conditions, diminish the violation of the maximum number of persons onboard the barge, and ensure the authority of the master of tug through such recommendations.