Abstract
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.
