DOCSLIB.ORG

Covid-19: New Challenges for Charterers and Traders

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Covid-19: New Challenges for Charterers and Traders COVID-19: NEW CHALLENGES FOR CHARTERERS AND TRADERS Kunbi Sowunmi ` Senior Claims Advisor/Lawyer Charterers & Traders Webinar, The Americas 23 June 2020 NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH A GOOD TIME 2 SCENARIO THE MV PERFORMANCE • Charterer/Trader party to a Sale Contract and Voyage Charterparty both dated 10th February 2020. • Sale Contract requires delivery of cargo at one named port in Yemen. • Charterparty calls for discharge at “1 SAFE berth/port in Charterers’ option HODEIDAH OR SALEEF YEMEN”. • COVID-19 is present in Yemen. • Delay at Yemen ports due to a local port authority order that all vessels be quarantined/detained on arrival at Yemen for COVID- 19 inspection and clearance. • Buyer declares Force Majeure based on the above situation. • Charterers instruct Owners to proceed to disport. Issues a Force Majeure declaration under the Charterparty. • Owners refuse to accept FM declaration. 3 THE CHALLENGE • What happens now? • Essentially a question of performance. - Who must perform? - Who is excused from performance? • Who is responsible for issues/claims that arise? This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA 4 IS COVID-19 A FORCE MAJEURE EVENT? • Force Majeure clause - needs to be contained in the CP or Sale Contract to be effective under English Law. • Generally the event relied upon must: − Fit within the definition of an FM event or the “catch all” provision; − Be unforeseeable; − Prevent, hinder or delay performance; − Be beyond the reasonable control of party relying on the event; Generally the FM clause will; − Impose a duty to avoid/mitigate the FM event; − Suspend and/or terminate performance; − Contain Notice requirements. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 5 FM PROVISION IN THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY Owner shall not be liable to Charterer, nor will Charterer be liable to Owner, whether in demurrage or in any other respect whatsoever, for any failure or delay in the performance of obligations under this Contract, and any such delay shall neither count as laytime nor as demurrage, if such failure or delay is due to or results from the following: act of war or the threat or anticipated imminence thereof; restraints of rulers, governments, or people; act or threat of terrorism; legislation, decrees, orders, regulations or the like in the country of origin or of Vessel’s flag; unrest or disturbance, sabotage, blockade, sanctions, civil commotion, political disturbances, breakdowns, power failure, accidents, or stoppages whether total or partial, at ports, on railways, or other means of transport to or from the ports; epidemics; disease; quarantine; Act of God; weather (including but not limited to drought, fog, frosts, floods, snow, storms, tidal wave, tsunami, tempest or washaways); any other event or occurrence of any nature or kind whatsoever beyond the reasonable control of Owner and/or Charterer, whether similar or dissimilar to the causes or circumstances mentioned above. 6 FM PROVISION IN THE VOYAGE CHARTERPARTY • Should any of the events referred to above lead to delays in excess of 25 days, for any of the contracted cargo(es), then either Charterer or Owner, shall have the right to cancel the relevant contracted cargo(es) without any liability under this Contract for either party including demurrage; alternatively by mutual agreement, this Contract shall be suspended for the period so affected and Owner and Charterer shall negotiate and so decide whether the terms of this Contract shall be extended beyond the original term by the period of suspension hereof. 7 CAN CHARTERERS ORDERS BE REFUSED? • If the port is within the agreed range then Owners have to proceed. • However, Owners might be able to refuse to proceed or if they do proceed, recover their losses based on: − Express Charterparty Terms OR − An Implied Indemnity from following Charterers’ orders as to the employment of the vessel. • An indemnity may be implied against loss or damage suffered by an Owner as a consequence of complying with charterers orders, unless the loss arises from a risk which the Owners themselves agreed to bear. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 8 CAN CHARTERERS ORDERS BE REFUSED? EXPRESS TERMS Some clauses address this situation. • BIMCO Infectious or Contagious Diseases Clauses for Time and Voyage Charterparties. • Intertanko Time and Voyage COVID-19 Clauses. Owner Friendly Clauses. • Gives the Owners the right to refuse to perform. May cancel voyage pre-loading. • Charterers must give alternative voyage instructions if Owners request this. • Owners can take unilateral actions if no alternative instructions forthcoming e.g. discharge cargo elsewhere. • Owners have a right to lien cargo for additional expenses and freight. • Charterers bear associated/consequential costs such as screening/cleaning/quarantine. Some other clauses exist that are more evenly balanced e.g. certain Epidemic Clauses. This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC 9 CHARTERPARTY ISSUES CAN CHARTERERS ORDERS BE REFUSED? • The answer will depend on the CP • Q1. Is there a significant risk of: Express/implied Terms. - the crew catching COVID-19? - the ship being blacklisted? • If CP silent then the Safety of the Port - the ship suffering an inordinate delay? becomes a consideration. Definition of a SAFE PORT “The Eastern City” • Q2. Can the risks be avoided by good navigation “…a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period and seamanship? of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal • The burden is on Owners to prove that the occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be port is unsafe. avoided by good navigation and seamanship…” 10 WHAT KIND OF CLAIMS ARE LIKELY TO ARISE? CLAIMS BY OWNERS • Breach of safe port warranty. • Recovery of Delay claims - Demurrage/Detention. Owners • Recovery of unpaid sums such as hire/freight. • Recovery of consequential losses e.g. quarantine/detention/cleaning costs and expenses. • Indemnity claims: − relating to the illness or death of crew. − for losses and claims brought against Owners by third Third Charterers parties. parties − for losses arising from the prohibition or blacklisting of vessels by other ports or authorities after calls to COVID-19 affected areas. 11 WHAT KIND OF CLAIMS ARE LIKELY TO ARISE? CLAIMS BY CHARTERERS • Insistence on performance/Countering unsafe port allegations. • Off-Hire during periods of quarantine/detention Owners due to crew illnesses/deficiency of men. • Claims for financial losses resulting from delay in shipment/delivery of cargo. • Force majeure. • Frustration declaration to suspend/avoid performance. • Laytime/Demurrage exclusions. • Indemnities for claims brought by third parties Third Charterers (see below). parties 12 WHAT KIND OF CLAIMS ARE LIKELY TO ARISE? CLAIMS BY THIRD PARTIES • Claims by receivers under B/L for: − Non delivery of the cargo. Owners − Late delivery of the cargo. − Damage to cargo resulting from delay in delivery. • Claims by third parties entirely un-connected with the adventure claiming that the Charterers or the Owners are responsible for spreading the disease. Third Charterers parties 13 MORE INFO AVAILABLE A compilation of links to some relevant websites and guidelines, and Gard material that may assist ship operators, masters and crews to stay alert and prepare and respond to the COVID-19 outbreak is available here 14.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Frequently Overlooked Risk Management Issues in Contracts of Affreightment and Sale Contracts
    Frequently overlooked risk management issues in contracts of affreightment and sale contracts 2021 AMPLA Queensland Conference Chris Keane MinterEllison 18 June 2021 The focus of today’s presentation - risk associated with two contracts used to facilitate the export of Australian commodities: . the sale contract / offtake agreement / supply agreement (sale contract) . the contract of affreightment / voyage charterparty / bill of lading (sea carriage contract) Specific focus is on risk and risk mitigation options that are frequently overlooked (both at the time of contract formation and also when disputes arise) 2 Risk arising out of seemingly straightforward issues . Duration of the sale contract - overarching issue that impacts on many other considerations; legal and commercial considerations will overlap . Port(s) of loading and port(s) of discharge - relevant considerations include: access to certain berths; special arrangements regarding loading and unloading; port congestion and other factors likely to cause delay; and the desirability of not requiring a CIF buyer to nominate a specific port of unloading (e.g. “one safe port and one safe berth at any main port(s) in China…”) . Selection of vessel - risk will depend on which party to the sale contract is responsible for arranging the vessel; CIF sellers need to guard against the risk of selecting an unsuitable vessel; FOB sellers need to ensure they have a right to reject an unsuitable vessel nominated by the buyer 3 Risk arising out of seemingly straightforward issues . Selection of contractual carrier - needs to be considered as an issue separate from the selection of the vessel; what do you know (and not know) about the carrier?; note the difficulties the contractual carrier caused for both the seller and buyer in relation to the ‘Maryam’ at Port Kembla earlier this year; proper due diligence is critical; consider (among other things) compliance with anti-slavery, anti-bribery and sanctions laws and issues concerning care of seafarers, safety and environment .
    [Show full text]
  • Volume Contracts of Affreightment – Some Features and Principles
    Volume Contracts of Affreightment – Some Features and Principles Lars Gorton 1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….…. 62 1.1 General Background ……………………………………………………… 62 1.2 Some Contractual Points …………..……………………………………... 62 1.3 Frame Agreements ………………………………………………………... 64 1.4 Some General Points Related to Distributorship Agreements and Volume Contracts ………………………………………. 66 1.5 Some Further Overriding Points ……………………………………….…. 67 2 Contract Forms ………………………………………………………………… 68 3 Law, Contract and Terminology ……………………………………………… 69 4 The SMC Rules on Volume Contracts ……………………………………..…. 70 5 Characteristics of COA’s ……………………………………………………… 71 6 The Generic Nature of the COA ………………………………………………. 72 7 Some of the Parameters of the COA ………………………...……………….. 76 7.1 The Ships Involved Under the Volume Contract ………………………… 76 7.2 Time Elements in Connection with COA’s ………………………………. 76 7.3 Cargo and Cargo Quantity and Planning of Voyages ………………….… 77 8 Breach and Consequences of Breach …………………………………………. 78 8.1 Generally, Best Efforts and Cooperation …………………………………. 78 8.2 Consequences of the Owners’s Breach …………………………………... 78 8.3 Consequences of the Charterer’s Breach …………………………………. 78 9 Some Comparisons with Distributorship Agreements in English Law ….…. 78 10 Some COA Cases Involving “Evenly spread” ……………………………….. 82 10.1 “Evenly spread” …………………………………………………………... 82 10.2 Mitigation of Damages …………………………………………………… 85 11 Freight, Demurrage and Similar ……………………………………………… 88 11.1 General Points ………..…………………………………………………... 88 11.2 Freight Level ……………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • PERFORMANCE and CANCELLATION of CHARTERPARTIES SUSPENSION / WITHDRAWAL / TERMINATION Notices, Damages and Potential Pitfalls
    PERFORMANCE AND CANCELLATION OF CHARTERPARTIES SUSPENSION / WITHDRAWAL / TERMINATION Notices, damages and potential pitfalls A. INTRODUCTION The minds of owners and charterers alike are presently focused (as they should) on the Covid19 outbreak and how they can either utilise existing clauses or put together new clauses dealing with Covid19 in an attempt to refuse to perform or get out of a charter or prevent their contractual counterparty from doing so. Penningtons Manches Cooper has already issued a number of articles and circulars (as well as a contractual tool kit) in respect of the effect of Covid19, the business interruption aspects of it as well as the way forward. But what happens in circumstances where an existing contract is no longer desirable (or indeed financially viable) and one of the contractual counterparties wishes to no longer be bound it, either because of, for example, the state of the market or because the other party are not performing their end of the deal, whether as a result of Covid19 or otherwise? A number of other considerations will of course be relevant (amongst others, the parties’ commercial relationships, the state of the market, the ability to enforce against the non-performing party) but the purpose of this article is to act as a reminder of the various options available to an owner and charterer in the context of refusing to perform or getting out of a charterparty. The above will be considered against a background of seeking to resolve disputes before they even arise, with a view to limiting (to the extent feasible) the costs and delays incurred where the parties engage in arbitration/ litigation proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 3:19-Cv-01259-JR Document 88 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 16
    Case 3:19-cv-01259-JR Document 88 Filed 01/06/21 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON SHELTER FOREST INTERNATIONAL Case No. 3:19-cv-01259-JR ACQUISITION, INC., an Oregon Corporation, OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiff, v. COSCO SHIPPING (USA) INC., a Delaware Corporation; COSCO SHIPPING LINES (NORTH AMERICA) INC., a Delaware Corporation; COSCO SHIPPING TERMINALS (USA) LLC, a Delaware LLC; RUDY ROGERS, an individual; COSCO SHIPPING LINES CO., LTD.; and JANE AND JOHN DOES NOS. 1-3, Defendants. _______________________________________ RUSSO, Magistrate Judge: Shelter Forest International Acquisition, Inc. (“SFI”) filed this action against defendants COSCO Shipping (USA) Inc., COSCO Shipping Lines (North America) Inc., COSCO Shipping Terminals (USA) LLC, Rudy Rogers, and COSCO Shipping Lines Co., Ltd. (“CSL”) alleging multiple contractually-based claims under state law.1 All parties have consented to allow a Magistrate Judge enter final orders and judgment in this case in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). CSL now moves for summary judgement on its remaining counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. For the reasons stated below, CSL’s motion is granted in part and denied in part. 1 All parties except CSL were subsequently voluntarily dismissed. Page 1 – OPINION AND ORDER Case 3:19-cv-01259-JR Document 88 Filed 01/06/21 Page 2 of 16 BACKGROUND CSL is a shipping company based in China operating a fleet of oceangoing containerships that transport cargo internationally, including between China and the United States. SFI is an Oregon corporation that imports and distributes lumber, plywood, and other building materials.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Charter Default Insurance
    Marine Practice CHARTER DEFAULT INSURANCE In response to shipowners’ increasing concerns about charterers’ solvency, Marsh has developed an industry-first product that protects owners from damaging financial losses. Backed by both insurers and a leading financial institution, Marsh’s Charter Default product provides a mix of fixed recovery guarantee and credit insurance, tailored to the shipowner’s particular requirements. Covering both outstanding debt at the time of an insolvency and the loss of future revenue for a set period, the product de-risks important revenue streams, thereby assisting owners to attract better terms fr om lenders by reducing counterparty credit risk. i • Charter Default Insurance PRODUCT OVERVIEW PROTECTING REVENUE AGAINST THE RISK OF FINANCIAL DEFAULT f Financial default is a recurring problem. Recent high profile cases of shipping companies filing for bankruptcy have again highlighted counterparty risk in the shipping sector f Companies with ships on charter are exposed to loss of revenue if their charterer folds or, at best, to enforced renegotiation of charter hire terms f The risk of default increases at times of global financial uncertainty f Fixed Recovery Guarantees and Credit Insurance protect against the risk of charterer default f For a listed company, de-risking the revenue stream can improve stock prospects f De-risking the revenue stream can also attract better terms from lenders Marsh • 1 CREDIT INSURANCE FIXED RECOVERY GUARANTEE Key FeaTuRes • an insurance policy designed to compensate an owner
    [Show full text]
  • 13-SHIPPING-GLOSSARY.Pdf
    GLOSSARY 2H SECOND HALF A/S ALONGSIDE A&CP ANCHORS AND CHAINS PROVED A/C AIRCRAFT CARRIER A/C ACCOUNT CURRENT A/D ALTERNATIVE DAYS A/M (ANTE MERIDIEM) BEFORE NOON A/O ACCOUNT OF A/S AFTER SIGHT A/S ALONGSIDE AA ALWAYS AFLOAT AA AFTER ARRIVAL AA ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE AA AVERAGE ADJUSTER AAA AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT AAAA ALWAYS AFLOAT, ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE AAOSA ALWAYS AFLOAT OR SAFE AGROUND AAR AGAINST ALL RISKS AARA ALWAYS ACCESSIBLE OR REACHABLE ON ARRIVAL AB ABLE SEAMAN AB ABLE BODIED SEAMAN AB AVERAGE BOND ABS AMERICAN BUREAU OF SHIPPING ABT ABOUT AC ALTERNATIVE CURRENT AC ACCOUNT AC ALTERNATING CURRENT ACC ACCOUNT ACC ACCEPTED ACK ACKNOWLEDGE ACV AIR CUSHION VEHICLE AD AFTER DATE AD AREA DIFFERENTIAL AD VAL (AD VALOREM) ACCORDING TO VALUE ADCOM ADDRESS COMMISSION ADF AUTOMATIC DIRECTION FINDER ADJ ADJUSTMEN ADV ADVANCEMENT OF SPECIAL SURVEY ADVT ADVERTISEMENT AF ANTI-FOULING AF ADVANCED FREIGHT AF ALSO FOR AFFF AQUEOUS FILM FORMING FOAM AFRA AVERAGE FREIGHT RATE ASSESSMENT AG ARABIAN GULF AGB ICE BREAKER AGC AMPHIBIOUS VESSEL AGT AGENT AGW ACTUAL GROSS WEIGHT AGW ALL GOING WELL AH AFTER HATCH AHD AHEAD AHL AUSTRALIAN HOLD LADDERS AHTS ANCHOR HANDLING TUD AND SUPPLY VESSEL AIS AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM ALERT AUTOMATIC LIFE-SAVING EMERGENCY RADIO TRANSMITTER ALRS ADMIRALTY LIST OF RADIO SIGNALS ALT ALTERNATING AM ABOVE MENTIONED AM AIR MAIL AMSL ABOVE MEAN SEA LEVEL AMT AMOUNT AMVER AUTOMATED MUTUAL ASSISTANCE VESSEL RESCUE SYSTEM AMWELSH AMERICANISED WELSH COAL CHARTER PARTY ANERA ASIA-NORTH AMERICA WESTBOUND RATE AGREEMENT ANOP
    [Show full text]
  • Documents of the Shipping Transport: Historical Origins, Legal Validity & Commercial Practice
    Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 10 (2020) 47-56 Doi: 10.17265/2159-5879/2020.02.005 D DAVID PUBLISHING Documents of the Shipping Transport: Historical Origins, Legal Validity & Commercial Practice Ioannis Voudouris, and Evi Plomaritou Frederick University, Cyprus Abstract: The bill of lading and charterparty are vital for international trade and transport. To signify their enduring importance, this paper firstly seeks to illuminate the earliest historical evidence relating to the bill of lading and charterparty, and secondly, discuss their current legal and commercial nature and functions as well as their relationship with other transport documents such as the booking note, cargo manifest, mate’s receipt, and delivery order. In this context, the paper examines the lifecycle of transport as regards the documents used in the bulk and liner markets. Key words: Bill of lading, charterparty, sea waybill, booking note, delivery order, Mate’s receipt, Cargo manifest. 1. Introduction upon their shipment on board the ship (shipped bill of lading). The most important documents governing the commercial and legal relationships between the parties 2. Historical Origins of the Bill of Lading, in international sea transport are the bill of lading and Charterparty, Sea Waybill and Other the charterparty. Among other things, these Transport Documents documents define the obligations as well as the The (non-negotiable) sea waybill and the respective costs and earnings of the contracting parties, (negotiable) bill of lading are nowadays the primarily the shipowner or carrier and the charterer or best-known ocean transport documents that are still in shipper. In addition, other documents, such as booking use.
    [Show full text]
  • An Appraisal of Demurrage Policies and Charges of Maritime Operators
    An Appraisal of Demurrage Policies and Charges of Maritime Operators in Nigerian Seaport Terminals: the Shipping Industry and Economic Implications Procjena politika i trošarina pomorskih operatora na prekostojnice u nigerijskim morskim terminalima: implikacije na brodarstvo i ekonomiju Obed Ndikom Nwokedi, Theophilus C. Sodiq, Olusegun Buhari Department of Maritime Management Department of Maritime Management Department of Maritime Management Technology Technology Technology Federal University of Technology Federal University of Technology Federal University of Technology Owerri Owerri Owerri e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected] Kenneth Okeke Okechukwu Department of Maritime Management DOI 10.17818/NM/2017/3.3 Technology UDK 656.615:330.13 Federal University of Technology Review / Pregledni rad Owerri Paper accepted / Rukopis primljen: 27. 2. 2017. Summary This research evaluated the demurrage policies and charges of selected shipping KEY WORDS companies and terminal operators in the Lagos ports and the implications in the demurrage economy and shipping industry in Nigeria. It adopted the survey approach to gather policies data from the dominant container operators (carriers) and the terminal operators. maritime operators Demurrage duration and categorization of the demurrage periods and charges for each seaports period by the selected operators were collected and compared using the statistical tool shipping industry of analysis of variance to determine if there are differences among the charges and charging systems. It was found that, significant differences do not exist in the average rate of demurrage charges per container per day among the shipping companies and terminal operators in Lagos seaports. The study also found that there is no significant difference in the average amount charged as demurrage among the shipping companies and terminal operators in the three differing periods of demurrage duration in Lagos ports, Nigeria.
    [Show full text]
  • Cargo Liens for Unpaid Hire and Freight Due Under a Time Or Voyage Charterparty
    Cargo liens for unpaid hire and freight due under a time or voyage charterparty During periods in which the global shipping economy is volatile, the likelihood of unpaid freight or hire occurs with higher frequency. Recently, the Club has witnessed charterers facing difficulty in meeting their obligation to pay freight due under a charterparty. In such circumstances, the shipowner may want to know if he is able to exercise a lien on the cargo until he has been paid the freight or hire due under the charterer. There must be a right of lien in the charterparty By Gho Sze Kee, Deputy Claims Manager The shipowner needs to determine if the charterparty will grant him a possessory lien over the cargo for the unpaid freight and As such, where the bill of lading incorporates a lien clause for unpaid hire. The more clearly a lien clause is drafted, the easier it is for the hire (as opposed to freight), the shipowners then has a right under shipowner to determine the scope of the lien clause and therefore the bill of lading to lien the cargo regardless of whether it is owned exercise his possessory lien for the unpaid freight or hire. by the charterers. Examples of widely drafted lien clauses that extend to and protect the shipowners right to lien, are clause 8 of GENCON 1994 Clause 1 of CONGENBILL All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter charterparty and clause 23 of NYPE 93. Party, dated as overleaf, including the Law and Arbitration Only when hire or freight under a charterparty becomes ‘due’ and Clause, are herewith incorporated.
    [Show full text]
  • Charterer's Liability Insurance
    CHARTERER’S LIABILITY INSURANCE A TYPE OF P&I INSURANCE Candidate number: Supervisor: Wilhelmsen Trine-Lise Semester of submission: Spring 2007 Deadline for submission: September 1, 2007 Date of submission: 28 August 2007 Number of words: 15810 1 Introduction 1 1.1 What is charterer’s liability insurance? 1 1.2 Charter parties suitable to charterer’s liability insurance 1 1.3 Why did I choose this topic? 2 2 Legal Sources 2 2.1 Statutes 2 2.1.1 China 3 2.1.2 Norway and England 3 2.2 Contractual sources 3 2.2.1 P&I rules 3 2.2.2 Charter parties 4 3 Charterer’s Risks 4 3.1 Risk from “safe-port clause” 4 3.2 Liability for damage to the ship during loading and discharging 5 3.3 Liability for damage caused by the cargo 5 3.4 Obligation to pay general average contributions 6 3.5 Legal expenses 6 4 Overview of Charterer’s Liability Insurance Policy 6 5 Liability Cover 7 5.1 Cover for liability from the “safe-port clause” 7 5.1.1 Interpretation of this cover 7 5.1.2 Legal basis of liability of the charterer in relation to safe-port clause 8 5.1.2.1 Chinese law 9 5.1.2.2 Norway 9 5.1.2.3 England 10 5.1.3 Situation of “non-safety” in the port 10 5.1.3.1 Rough weather conditions 10 5.1.3.2 Political risks 12 5.1.3.3 The time of “non-safety” 14 5.1.4 Conclusion 16 5.2 Cover for liability during loading and discharging 17 5.3 Cover for liability of damage caused by the cargo 18 I 6 General Average Cover 21 6.1 P&I coverage for General Average 21 6.2 Charterer’s liability to pay General Average costs in the charter contract 22 6.3 Legal basis of liability to pay General Average 23 6.3.1 China 23 6.3.2 Norway 23 7 Legal Expenses Cover 24 7.1 P&I insurance 24 7.1.1 China 25 7.1.2 Norway 26 7.1.3 England 26 7.2 Freight, Demurrage and Defense Insurance (F.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Ship Broking Process
    SHIP BROKING PROCESS FIXTURE POST FIXTURE PRE-FIXTURE • Contacting the right ship • Post-Fixture – Loading • First and foremost, owner and starting the process Shipbroker need to gather of negotiation. • To ensure that the following information from charterer/ship-owner has the charterer before going • Depending on the current nominated an agent at the into the market. state of the ports ensure that the load market, shipbroker could get port agent has received the • Charterer’s & Shipper’s the right vessel and rate nomination from ship-owner background. required. in order to nominate the ship with the port monitor the • Type of cargo, quantity, • Indentifying the right agents, stevedores, shipper, stowage factor. ship/rate, anroker send the cargo movement on a daily ship owners initial rate offer to basis. • Loading & discharging ports. the charterers. • Monitor that the bills of • If the rate offer is to interst of lading drafts are confirmed • Loading and discharging in time rates according to charterer, then to get ship Charterer’s sales contracts. owners complete terms and conditions and forward to • Monitor and report loading charterer for review. speed, loading berth, • Commission details weather conditions etc on a • Charterer may agree to the daily basis. • Laycan (shipment date) terms or may wish to make some changes which then • Ensure that the ship-owner communicate with the ship and charterer are informed owner for their confirmation daily about current stage of loading process. • Once an agreement has been reached, then to advise the • Check NOR+SOF upon ship’s details including ships completion of loading and certificates (where required) find out to the charterer.
    [Show full text]
  • Hapag Lloyd Bills of Lading Terms and Conditions
    Bill of Lading · Terms and Conditions Page 1 1. Definitions THAT DAMAGE WOULD PROBABLY RESULT. in accordance with the ISPS Code in relation to the Merchant’s Goods. “Carrier” means the party named on page 2 of this Bill of Lading. (k) Subject to the applicable restrictions in statutory law and international conventions, the Car- (3) The Carrier is entitled to deviate the vessel to a different port and to unload the Goods there if the “Carriage” means the whole or any part of the operations and services undertaken by rier shall not be liable for damage caused by error in navigating or handling the vessel, includ- authorities in the port of discharge have increased its level of security according to the ISPS Code the Carrier in respect of the Goods covered by this Bill of Lading. ing errors caused by the arrangement of group of tugs or pushers. after the Goods have been loaded. “Crew” means the vessel’s master, her officers, seamen and other persons (3) Change of Destination by Merchant (4) The Merchant undertakes to compensate any costs and expenses suffered by the Carrier directly or indirectly employed in the operation of the vessel as defined in In the event that the Merchant requests the Carrier to deliver the Goods at a port or place other because of a delay of the vessel resulting from a violation of the ISPS Code by the Merchant. section 478 of the German Commercial Code. than the port of discharge or the place of delivery originally designated in this Bill of Lading and 14.
    [Show full text]