In this case the shipowner was held entitled to enforce a letter of indemnity given to the voyage charterer by the receiver of cargo where the cargo had been delivered to the receiver on the charterer's instructions in the absence of presentation of the original bills of lading.The court held that the letter had been issued to the charterer, the cargo had been "delivered" as required by the letter and no issue of public policy was involved.As to public policy, the delivery of cargo without produ ...
|
The appellant insurer appealed against a decision that it was liable on an insurance policy in respect of a floating dock which was lost in the course of a voyage from Vladivostock to Vung Tau in Vietnam.The towage plan for the voyage permitted towage in conditions up to sea force 5 with a maximum wave height of 3.5m. Pontoons were affixed to the dock for the voyage.On the voyage the dock was caught by a tropical storm with waves up to 10 meters which unexpectedly changed direction. One of the p ...
|
Novasen (N) entered into a contract for the sale of a cargo of oils with Sogescol (S), on FOSFA terms and including a FOSFA arbitration clause. N failed to deliver the oil. Alimenta (A) claimed to be the undisclosed principal of S and thus entitled to enforce the contract. A commenced arbitration proceedings against N. The arbitrators found that there was a contractual relationship between A and N.N appealed asserting want of jurisdiction. N argued (amongst other things) that the arbitrators did ...
|
A vessel was chartered by owners (O) to charterers (C). Shortly before the start of a particular fixture C cancelled the relevant fixture note because the intended cargo was unavailable at the loading port due to political unrest. O accepted C's cancellation as a repudiatory breach and indicated that they would be searching for alternative employment for the vessel.As it was unable to find an alternative fixture before the end of the trip, O claimed damages for the hire it would have earned on t ...
|
The petitioners were Swiss and English Companies. The respondents were a company registered under the laws of Cyprus, who owned an offshore intervention vessel known as “Sarah”. In an action pending before the High Court of Justice in England, the petitioners were seeking payment from the respondents of more than $2 million, which was said to be overdue on invoices relative to an Agreement between the parties regarding the provision of remotely operated vehicle (“ROV”) eq ...
|
Events occurring after early re-delivery of a vessel and the assessment of damages
N was the disponent owner of a vessel and chartered it to G. G re-delivered the vessel approximately 6 months early in breach of the charter. N sought damages on the basis of the difference between contract and market rate for the balance of the charter in the amount of US$5,468,477. N succeeded in arbitration.G appealed on the basis that N had re-delivered the vessel to the head-owners 22 days early and that the saving of costs had not been taken into account when assessing N’s damages. The app ...
|
Reliance damages were limited by reference to the position the claimant would have been in if the contract had been performed
Mamola (M) chartered their vessel to Omak (O) for a period of 5 years. Under the charter, M was required to modify the vessel (including installing a new crane). M incurred expense preparing for these modifications (the work having no residual value or benefit to M). O’s conduct was repudiatory and this was accepted (prior to the start of the charter) by M. M brought a claim for its wasted expenditure in preparing for the charter. O argued, inter alia, that M should not be entitled to the damage ...
|
Damages for breach of a time charter for loss of a subsequent fixture were recoverable where they were not too remote (The Achilleas distinguished)P time chartered a bulk carrier from S. The vessel was detained at Canada following inspection for repairs to the structure of her holds. P had previously entered into a sub-charter for a voyage from Canada which it lost as a result of its detention. P entered into a substitute fixture which was less profitable. It claimed its loss of profit from S on ...
|
Reducing damages for wrongful premature termination of a time charter to take into account benefits enjoyed by the Owners after the notional date on which the Vessel would (but for the breach) have been re-deliveredN time chartered a vessel from D. N redelivered the Vessel prematurely. Faced with no available market, D ordered the Vessel to another location, dry-docked her then delivered her to another charterer. The Vessel earned a significantly higher rate under this subsequent charter. The Tr ...
|
‘Readiness’ required under an FOB contract on GAFTA Form 49 was not equivalent to that required for a shipowner’s Notice of Readiness and a Seller was obliged to load despite concerns that the holds were unclean
S entered into an FOB contract to sell 15,000 tons of feed barley to B. The contract incorporated GAFTA Form 49 and required the vessel to be‘presented at loading port in readiness to load’. Laytime (and in turn demurrage) was to run from tender of a valid Notice of Readiness (NOR).The relevant vessel gave NOR on the last day of the delivery period. S refused to load the cargo as the holds were unclean and argued that a valid NOR could not be given. B disputed this and called upon S to load. S r ...
|
| 1 2 3 |