• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.6
• /
• pp.689-697
• /
• 2013

The demurrage is regarded as a kind of the ocean freight and a remuneration of the time lost for the vessel while in port. In ordinary occasions of the voyage charter, the liability of a demurrage is usually laid on the charterers unless any exceptions are incorporated. The owners are, however, often meeting somehow difficulty to secure demurrage in the field as the liability is limited or transferred to a third party from the charterers. This paper is focused on clearing the liabilities to be held by the parties involved through the English Law cases, and what's more is rendering a proper suggestions to the owners and charterers on dealing with the ship's operation business.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.70
• /
• pp.39-65
• /
• 2016

On 2013 the English court delivered a decision that the payment obligation under time charter party is a condition. According to this judgement, The Astra, a breach of the obligation to pay hire on time entitles the owner both to withdraw the ship and sue the charterers for damages for the difference between the contract and market rate for the remainder of the contracted period. On 2015, however, the English court stood at the other side. In Spar Shipping, the court confirmed that the obligation to pay hire is not a condition of the contract but an "innominate term" - from the charterers' breach ship owners can exercise their contractual right to withdraw, but owners' right to sue for damages depends on whether the charterers have deprived the owners of the substantial benefit of the contract, or shown an intention to do so. This article aims to compare both decisions over the points that (1) the importance of on-time payment under a time charter party, (2) as a critical and main question in this article, whether the mattered payment clause is a condition or innominate term, (3) whether the on-time payment clause is merely a penalty or a reasonable liquidated damage. Based on various reasons, I am on a position that the payment of hire is not a condition but an innominate term. Default in punctual payment by a charterer, in the absent of clear contractual agreement, needs to be decided further whether that breach removes the substantial benefit of the contract from the owners.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.27-53
• /
• 2013

It is a generalized way for the chartering business to fix the laytime bars except rarely adapting the customary despatch of the cargo work in port. The way of customary despatch is usually accepted by the owners in case the port facilities and other relevant infrastructures are in the satisfactory level for the cargo work whereas the laytime bars to be widely incorporated in the chaterparty for almost all occasions for owners and charterers to bind each other in loading and discharging cargo in port. The main purpose of establishing laytime bars on the charterparty is to secure the right and duty for both parties of the owners and the charterers, and furthermore to make the vessel despatched quickly from the port, whereby the costs incidental to the loading and discharging in port to be saved as much as possible. and the minimized costs in port will contribute to the profits in all parties involved in loading and discharging cargo. The conditions and terms on the laytime bars are expressed variously in their kinds according to the types of the charterparty to be used. The owners and charterers or the ship operators, however, seems not to be so accustomed in lawful understanding on these terms and conditions, and therefrom lots of disputes are noticed practically in the business field. As a result, this study is focused to render the owners and charterers rather clear understanding on their meanings and effects in legal aspects, and the various English Law Cases are referred in order to achieve the purpose of this study.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• pp.83-104
• /
• 2012

The main purpose of tramp ships in shipping markets is to produce operation profits by minimizing the running days in a contract of the voyage charterparty. It is an especially difficult task for the owners to earn operation profits in the present recessional shipping market. Tramp ships are moving towards globalization in order to look for a variety of cargoes, which are distinguished from the liners operating regularly as per the fixed time schedule. Tramp shipping, therefore, requires special attention every voyage to secure operation efficiency which comes from minimized sea and laytime in port. The laytime is allowed by owners but if the charterers use more laytime than that which is incorporated in the charterparty, then a compensation known as 'demurrage' must be paid to owners. Conversely if the time is shorter this is called 'despatch' and in this case the owners are paid. As the laytime issue in the voyage charter is somewhat delicate, it often causes much disputes between charterers and owners during the cargo handling in ports. This study focuses on the charterers' right and duty on the laytime which is usually applied for the benefit of the charterers. Reference is also made to English law cases to reinforce this study and the conclusion will make relevant suggestions for further research.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.167-192
• /
• 2012

The purpose of the study aims to analyse the judgement criterion of arrived ship under voyage charterparty with the Merida Case. A ship is an arrived ship if she is in port and either able to proceed immediately to a berth or in such a position that she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the chaterparty. Identification of the specified destination-whether berth or port-impacts on the incidence of loss occasioned by delay in loading or discharging, when the delay is due to the place at which the vessel is obliged by the terms of the charterparty to load or discharge her cargo being occupied by other shipping. The Merida case is an appeal by the charterers from a final Arbitration award of two very experienced arbitrators, dated 20th April, 2009. The arbitrators held that a voyage charterparty, dated 5th February, 2007, of the vessel, The M/V Merida, entered into between charterers and the owners, was a port rather than a berth Charterparty. The Primary relevance of this distinction does to the allocation, as between owners and charterers, of the risk of delay caused by congestion at load and discharge ports. The question of law arising in this appeal is whether the arbitrators were right to conclude that the charterparty was a port and not a berth charterparty. The arbitrators additionary placed some reliance on a post-contractual e-mail from the agents, which suggested that charterers did not dispute the validity of the NOR-and, hence, that this was a port charterparty.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.1
• /
• pp.119-135
• /
• 2020

It is well-known that if a claim for damage [Note: Damage can be singular or plural] is made based on a breach of contract, calculating the existence and magnitude of certain profits to be deducted based on the damage can be problematic. In the case of a time charter party, even if the early redelivering vessel by the time charterers constitutes a breach of contract, it is still not an exception. In particular, interest in the shipping business seems to be relatively high in terms of how claims for damage by ship owners have been adjusted. In the case of the New Flamenco, there is a debate over whether or not to deduct the difference between the sale price immediately after redelivering the ship and the sale price upon expiration of the contract from the damage based on the breach of contract for the early time charter redelivery vessel. This paper focuses on this case since it appears to be of practical importance and has implications on how to calculate the amount of damage in the case of cancellation for early redelivery vessel in a time charter party.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.26 no.3
• /
• pp.92-113
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the implied terms of safe berth under Voyage charterparty with the Rebon case. Where the safety of the berth is warranted, but not the safety of the port, then the charterer's obligation is to nominate a berth which can be approached safely from within the port and which was itself, save insofar as affected by hazards or risks which affect the port as a whole or all of the berths within it. This case is an appeal from an order made by the judge dismissing an appeal from a final declaratory award on preliminary issues made by arbitrators. The judge expressed the question for decision somewhat differently as follows: if a specific load port is named in a voyage charterparty and there are several possible berths within that port to which a vessel could be directed to load by the charterers and there is no express warranty in the charterparty of the safety of either the port or the berth to which the vessel is to be directed by the charterers, is the charterparty subject to an implied term that the charterers must nominate a safe berth at that load port?

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study aims to explore shipowner's lost profit and its claim resulted from delay in redelivery under time charter with the Achilleas case. In this case, the charterers submitted that there was an established prima facie measure of damages in cases of late delivery, namely the difference between the market rate and the charter-party rate for the period from the time when the vessel should have been delivered until the time of her actual redelivery. An award for lost profit in respect of a subsequent charter could only be made under the second limb because the charterers had not been told, at or before the making of the addendum, that the owners were going to enter into a subsequent fixture and that it was critical that redelivery take place on time. However, the owners said their losses that was a not unlikely consequence of the charterers' breach. There was no special rule that the first limb could only lead to damages calculated by taking the difference between the market and the charter-party rate for the overrun. To award damages in the Achilleas case on the basis of the difference between the market and the charter rate for the overrun would compensate the owners for only a fraction of the true loss caused by the breach.