common tanker charterparty clauses
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
1/26
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE, MINING AND COMMODITIESTRANSPORTTECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONPHARMACEUTICALS AND LIFE SCIENCES
Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses:
the law and how to navigate the issuesPeter GloverSenior Associate / Master Mariner
31 May 2013
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
2/26
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONSENERGY
INFRASTRUCTURE, MINING AND COMMODITIESTRANSPORTTECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATIONPHARMACEUTICALS AND LIFE SCIENCES
Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses:
the law and how to navigate the issues
Outline of Presentation:
Description of vessel
Repudiation of charterpaty
It has been observed, perhaps somewhat cynically, that there is almost a "tradition" of those parties
involved in a maritime collision giving flatly contradictory evidence on all material points.
Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd v Braverus Maritime Inc. (2005) 140 FCR 445
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
3/26
Description of Vessel
Common for a description of the vessel to be found in introductory part
ASBATANKVOY
PART I
A. Description and Position of Vessel: [ ]
Deadweight: tons (2240 lbs.) Classed: [ ]
Loaded draft of Vessel on assigned summer freeboard ft. in. in salt water.Capacity for cargo: [ ] tons (of 2240 lbs. each) [ ] % more or less, Vessel's option.
Coated: [ ] Yes [ ] No
Coiled: [ ] Yes [ ] No Last two cargoes: [ ]
Now: [ ] Expected Ready: [ ]
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
4/26
Description of Vessel
SHELLVOY 6
Part I
(A) Description of vessel
(I) Owners warrant that at the date hereof, and from the time when the obligation to proceed to the loadport(s) attaches, the vessel
(i) Is classed
(ii) (a) Has a deadweight of [ ] tonnes (100kg) on salt-water draft on assigned summer freeboard of [ ] m. and if applicable,
(b) Has on board documentation showing the following additional drafts and deadweights
(iii) Has capacity for cargo of [ ] m3
(iv) Is fully fitted with heating systems for all cargo tanks capable of maintaining cargo at a temperature of up to [ ] degrees
Celcius and can accept a cargo temperature on loading of up to a maximum of [ ] degrees Celcius.
(v) Has tanks coated as follows: [ ]
(vi) Is equipped with cranes/derricks capable of lifting to and supporting at the vessels port and starboard manifolds submarine
hoses of up to [ ] tonnes (1000kg) in weight.
(vii) Can discharge a full cargo (whether homogenous or multi grade) either within 24 hours, or can maintain a back pressure of
100 PSI at the vessels manifold and Owners warrant such minimum performance provided receiving facilities permit and
subject always to the obligation of utmost despatch set out in Part II, clause 3 (1).
The discharge warranty shall only be applicable provided the kinematic viscosity only exceeds 600 centistokes on part of the cargo or
particular grade(s) then the discharge warranty shall continue to apply to all other cargo/grades.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
5/26
Description of Vessel
General rule
words in charter which describe the vessel or equipment are not representations but
terms of the charter
Question is the term a condition, warranty or intermediate term?
condition gives rise to a right to terminate
warranty gives rise to a right to damages
intermediate term right to terminate if it is sufficiently serious, but otherwise damages
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co. Ltd. v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. [1961] 2 Lloyds Rep. 478
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
6/26
Pennsylvania Shipping Company v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation
(1936) 55 Ll. L. Rep 271
Time charter for 12 months for tanker Vendemiaire
Protracted negotiations
Charterers asked Owners:
what was the diameter of the ships cargo lines and how many inches from her bottom the heater coils were placed?
Owners responded:
pipelines 350 millimeters intake; 300 millimeters outlet; heating coils fitted right at bottom of tanks.
These statements were embodied in the charterparty as guaranteed by Owners
Owners also guaranteed Vendemiaire was in every way fitted to carry crude petroleum or molasses
On inspection by Charterers Vendemiaire was not:
fitted with limber holes sufficient in number or size to prevent free flow of molasses to suction pipes
not fitted with a sprinkler system (required for vessels transiting the Panama Canal) with gasoline cargoes
not fitted with four master valves being required for the carriage of molasses
cargo discharge pipes and pipelines were not satisfactory
heating coils were not fitted right at the bottom of tanks, but on top of frames 12 inches from the bottom
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
7/26
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
8/26
Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen (the Diana Prosperity)
[1976] 2 Lloyds Rep. 60
To secure financing for new building of 88,000 ton Japanese motor tanker
Vessel chartered before building work started
Two charterparties on Shelltime 3 form
Charterparties referred to vessel to be built at Osaka with yard or hull number 354
Vessel finally built at Oshima bearing yard or hull number Oshima 004
Physical attributes of vessel met those required under the respective charters
Vessel delivered in 1974:
market had collapsed due to oil crisis
charterers sought to escape obligations by rejecting vessel
vessel tendered did not correspond with the contractual description in that it was Oshima 004 and
not Osaka 354
Charterers sought to argue that every aspect of the vessels description was a condition
breach would entitle charterers to terminate the charterparty
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
9/26
Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-Tangen (the Diana Prosperity) [1976] 2 LloydsRep. 60
Per Lord Wilberforce
Even if a strict and technical view must be taken as regards the description of unascertained future
goods (e.g. commodities) as to which each detail of the description must be assumed to be vital, it may
be, and in my opinion is, right to treat other contracts of sale of goods in a similar manner to other
contracts generally so as to ask whether a particular item in a description constitutes a substantial
ingredient of the identity of the thing sold, and only if it does to treat it as a condition.
Endorsing approach in Cargo Ships El-Yam Ltd v Invotra [1958] 1 Lloyds Rep 39 and
Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd [1962] 2 Q.B. 26
in attending to the nature and gravity of a breach or departure rather than in accepting rigid
categories which do or do not automatically give a right to rescind
Look to the nature and gravity of a breach for remedy
Casts doubt - but does not overrule - Pennsylvania Shipping Co v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
10/26
Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v Pyrena Shipping Inc.
(the Arianna) [1987] 2 Lloyds Rep. 376
Amended Esso time form
Charterparty for 10 years 2 months more or less in charterers option
Charterparty provided:
Preamble:-
and equipped with Butterworth Tank Cleaning machinery, and fitted throughout in all cargo and bunker compartments
with heating coils and Vessel is capable of heating cargo to a maximum temperature of 135oF and of maintaining such
temperature throughout entire discharge, the Vessel being so constructed and equipped on delivery under this Charter
57A) The vessel to be employed in general product trading with all liquid cargoes that can safely be handled by product
tankers and for which the ship is suitable according to tanks segregations
69) Owner to at all times maintain tank cleaning system in good order such that 6 machines can run simultaneously, at
seawater temperature of 180oF at 170 PSI pressure.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
11/26
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
12/26
Athenian Tankers Management S.A. v Pyrena Shipping Inc. (the Arianna) [1987]
2 Lloyds Rep. 376
Held:
a charterer who cancels on the ground that the ships gear is defective must (in the absence of
express or implied provisions about the gear) show that the defects were such that the ship would
probably be unready when the time came to play her part in the agreed method of loading, if any, or in
giving the necessary co-operation in any reasonable method that might be employed.
Case did not disclose sufficient evidence or unreadiness in this sense imports a temporal connection
Charterer was not entitled to cancel the charterparty
Considered Pennsylvania Shipping Company v Compagnie Nationale de Navigation
It must be remembered that this is a forfeiture clause and so not to be applied lightly. It would be a
misfortune, I think, if defects of no real significance in the adventure were to be used as a means of
throwing up a charter at the last moment.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
13/26
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
14/26
The Charter Period and Repudiatory Breach
VELATIME 3
1. Term:
(a) The term of this Charter shall be for a period of about _____________ (hereinafter Original Period) plus any
extensions thereof as provided in (b) below. The Original Period shall commence at the time when Vessel is placed at
Charterers disposal as provided in Clause 5. The word about as used above shall mean _________ (____) days more
or less and shall apply to the term of this Charter consisting of the Original Period plus any extensions as hereinafter
provided.
SHELLTIME 4
4. (a) Owners agree to let and Charterers agree to hire the vessel for a period of [ ] plus or minus [ ] days in Charterers
option, commencing from the time and date of delivery of the vessel, for the purpose of carrying all lawful merchandise
(subject always to Clause 28) including in particular;
Crude / Clean Petroleum Products (CPP) / Veg oils / Palms oils and IMO2/3 chemicals per vessels certificate of fitness, including DPP. Cargoes
to be accordance with Vessels class, flag state, coating manufacturers resistance list and not harmful to vessels tanks, coating, lines and
valves, maximum eight (8) grade segregation within Vessels natural segregation. Within British IWL excluding any areas and /or countries
sanctioned, banned or boycotted by the UN and/or US and/or EU and or other countries prohibited by Vessels flag state.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
15/26
The Charter Period and Repudiatory Breach
Charterers need to know length of the time charter in order to plan business interests:
next employment; and
assessment of gross income for charter period
General terms risk of overrun is to be borne by charterers
contract defines the charter period for charterer to use the ship; and
owner entitled to take back the ship on expiry of the charter period
Torvald Klaveness A/S v Arni Maritime Corporation (The Gregos ) [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep. 1
charterers originally gave a valid legitimate last voyage
prior to completion of present voyage the legitimate last voyage became unworkable
charterers insisted the orders were legitimate
owners contended:
unless legitimate orders were given they would treat charterers as being in repudiatory breach of the charter and
withdraw the vessel
vessel delivered 8 days late
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
16/26
The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep. 1
Whatever the charter may order, a service which falls outside the range encompassed by the owners original promise is
not one which he can be compelled to perform; and this is so as regards not only the duration of the chartered service, but
also all the other limitations imposed by the charterparty on the charterers freedom of choice. There is thus to be a
measuring of the service called for against the service promised. As a matter of common sense, it seems to me that the
time for such measurement is, primarily at least, the time when performance falls due.
...
... because in practice the interests of both parties demand that the charterer is entitled to give orders in advance of the
time for performance; and this must entail at least a provisional judgment on the validity of the order.
...
Thus, if and for so long as the service required conforms with those which the shipowner promised in advance to render
the specific order creates a specific obligation to perform them when the time arrives. But only for so long as that state of
affairs persists. If circumstances change, so that compliance with the order will call for a service which in the original
contract the shipowner never undertook, the obligation to comply must fall away.
The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep. 1, 7
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
17/26
The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep. 1
The original order having become ineffectual the charterers were obliged by cl. 11 to replace it with one
which they were entitled to give.
...
It was plain from the facts stated by the arbitrator that the charterers had no intention of doing this, ...
...
Not that the order constituted a repudiation in itself, but that the charterers persistence in it after it had
become invalid showed that they did not intend to perform their obligations under the charter. That is, to
say, evinced an intention no longer to be bound by the charter. This was an anticipatory breach, whichentitled the owners to treat the contract as ended.
The Gregos [1995] 1 Lloyds Rep. 1, 9-10
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
18/26
Isabella Shipowner SA v Shagang Shipping Co Ltd (The Aquafaith)
[2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
Charterparty on NYPE terms
Duration of 59 61 months
Express warranty:
that the vessel will not be re-delivered before the minimum period of 59 months.
Admitted anticipatory breach, charterers stated that they would re-deliver the vessel early
Charterers made it plain that they had no further use for the vessel for the balance of the minimum period of charter
Owners commenced arbitration seeking:
a partial final award that owners were entitled to refuse such re-delivery (as they had done);
to affirm the charterparty; and
hold charterers liable for hire for the balance of the minimum period
Arbitrator held:
owners were required to take re-delivery of the vessel;
trade the vessel on the spot market by way of mitigation
claim damages in respect of their loss
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
19/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
On appeal issue turned on the principals enunciated in the decision of White and Carter (Councils)
Limited v McGregor[1962] AC 413
basic principle that, if one party to a contract repudiates it, in the sense of making it clear to the other
party that he refuses or will refuse to carry out his part of the contract, the innocent party has the optionof either accepting that repudiation and suing for damages for breach of contract, or refusing to accept
the repudiation and affirming the continuation of the contract. If then the innocent party can complete the
contract himself, without the need for any action on the part of the contract breaker, he will be in a
position to sue for the agreed price.
Principle is subject to two exceptions where the claimant will be limited to a remedy in damages:
(i) where the defendant's co-operation is required before the claimant can complete performance
(ii) where the claimant has no legitimate interest, financial or otherwise, in performing the contract rather
than claiming damages
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
20/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
Arbitrator accepted charterers submission that:
owners could not complete the charter without charterers doing something
principle in White and Carterof no application
owners had no legitimate interest financial or otherwise in performing the contract
Arbitrator accepted that a time charter could not be performed without charterers doing something
Subsequent authorities
The Puerto Buitrago [1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep 250
charterers redelivered a vessel in a state of disrepair
repairs would cost US $2 million
end of the repair period the vessel would be worth only $1 million
it was stated that the White and Carter principle had no application where the plaintiff ought:
... in all reason, to accept the repudiation and sue for damages provided that damages would provide an
adequate remedy for any loss suffered by him. (per Lord Denning)
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
21/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
The Odenfeld [1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep 357
charterers repudiated a time charter with 6.5 years to run
court considered the facts in The Puerto Buitrago to be extreme, and rejected the charterers' contention that the owners
were not entitled to affirm the charter
Held - any fetter on the innocent party's right of election whether or not to accept a repudiation would only apply in extreme
cases, viz. where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to keep the contract alive would be
wholly unreasonable.
The Alaskan Trader [1984] 1 Al l ER 129
a major engine breakdown
early re-delivery of a vessel by 8 months under a 2 year time charterparty
held - owners were not entitled to sue for the hire
court reasoned that the shipowners had no legitimate interest in performing the contract and that the court was only
bound to hold that there is some fetter on the right to election only in extreme cases
The Dynamic [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 693
premature re-delivery under a time charter
court stated:
The exception to the general rule applies only in extreme cases: where damages would be an adequate remedy and
where an election to keep the contract alive would be unreasonable.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
22/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
First question - Is a time charter subject to the rule in White and Carter?
Could the owners claim hire from the charterers under this time charter without the need for the
charterers to do anything under the charter?
If the charterers failed to give any orders, the vessel would simply stay where it was, awaiting orders but
earning hire.
Earning of hire after purported redelivery was not dependent on any performance by the charterers
Second question Did the exception to White and Carter apply?
Arbitrator - owners had no legitimate interest in keeping the charterparty alive
Court - arbitrator had never directed his mind to the principles set in:
The Puerto Buitrago
The Odenfeld
The Alaskan Trader
The Dynamic
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
23/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
Held:
matter was not one which fell within the exception to the principle in White and Carter
effect of authorities on owners:
... no legitimate interest in maintaining the contract if damages are an adequate remedy and his
insistence on maintaining the contract can be described as wholly unreasonable, extremely
unreasonable or, perhaps, in my words, perverse.
Charterers were
... seeking to foist upon the innocent party the burden of seeking to trade in a difficult spot market,
where a substitute time charter was impossible, with all the management issues involved.
In the present circumstances the Court found that the arbitrator should have:
... been asking himself whether or not this was an extreme case of the kind where damages were an
adequate remedy and the owners' conduct was so beyond the pale that they should not be allowed to
keep the contract alive. That he did not do.
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
24/26
The Aquafaith [2012] EWHC 1077 (Comm)
Reformulation of the test for repudiation as set out inAquafaith
decision of the shipowner need be "beyond the pale" or "perverse"
before can be said to have no legitimate interest in maintaining the charterparty
evidential bar has been raised for charterers seeking to avoid the bargain agreed
owners arguably in a stronger position in difficult tanker trading market
may have wider contract law implications
-
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
25/26
Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses:
the law and how to navigate the issues
Questions?
Peter Glover
Tel: 0207 444 [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/13/2019 Common Tanker Charterparty Clauses
26/26
Our international practice