• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• 제38권5호
• /
• pp.471-477
• /
• 2014

In general, a regular charterparty form is used as a charterparty for tugboats which are employed in marine construction and a bareboat charter form is generally used for barge boat charterparty. As the tug-barge charterparty which are currently used do not have a standardised form, contracting parties arbitrarily decide on the terms and conditions of the contract. As a result, provisions of the charterparty usually do not specify in the contract which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. Furthermore, the terminologies used in the charterparty are different from legal terms of current commercial law which causes confusion. These problems can be solved mostly by clarifying the legal character of the charterparty between the contracting parties and by conforming the terminologies. In addition, endeavour to standardise the contract form must be carried forward at the same time. This research purports to study actual condition of current charterparty for tug-barge ship which are employed to marine construction and to suggest systematic improvement plan. For this purpose, this research focuses on studying cases in which dispute arose due to lack of clarity in the provisions of the contract with regard to which party bears the burden of liability in case of accident. This research also purports to suggest forming the standardised contract terms of the charterparty as one way of solution and examine matters to be attended in writing a standardised form.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• 제28권3호
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.169-190
• /
• 2009

In order to establish whether any charterparty terms are incorporated into the bill of lading, the first necessity is to specify the charterparty alluded to the incorporation clause in the bill of lading. However, this becomes a potential problem where the date of a charterparty is not inserted on the face of the bill of lading in case a vessel is in operation under a number of charterparties. Over many years this issue has frequently been raised before the English courts, but it is still causing problems. The purpose of this study is to examines the several English authorities which dealt with the issue relating to the specification of charterparty incorporated into the bill of lading and to present some interpretation rules and the order of priority. As a result, the comparative analysis of English authorities shows that they failed to give dear guidance on this issue. This article therefore suggests four interpretation rules such as the precedence of a B/L's face, the rule of appositeness, surrounding circumstances, the contra proferentem rule and shows that the precedence of a B/L's face is most applicable for all parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제69권
• /
• pp.85-105
• /
• 2016

The fact that one of the parties to the sale contract has had to pay demurrage to the shipowner under LD clauses in the charterparty does not of itself mean that he can recover that loss from his sale counter party under the sale contract: the route to such recovery is through express clauses in the sale contract itself. LD clauses in a sale contract stand free and independent of their counterparts in the relevant charterparty. LD clauses in a sale contract should be construed and applied as clauses in sale contracts, not as adjuncts to charterparties. Their interpretation should therefore be coloured not by decisions on laytime and demurrage in charterparties, but by their relationship to the contractual duties of CIF and FOB sellers and buyers. The results discussed here have implications for the drafting of LD clauses in sale contracts. If unwelcome surprises are to be avoided, it seems to advisable to start from the principle: what exactly do traders want or need in LD clauses. They need a clause which covers them against charterparty losses where those losses are the result of dealy caused by the counterparty to the sale contract. The parties to the sale contracts are well advised to prepare LD clauses concentrating on that purpose and bearing in mind the followiing questions. First, should the loading and discharge code in the sale contract appear in traders' or trade associations' standard terms and conditions or should they be left to ad hoc negotiation in contract sheets? Second, should that code be as complete as possible, covering loading or discharge periods or rates, demurrage and despatch, or is it enough for only some of those matters to be covered explicitly, leaving other matters to be governed" as per charterparty"? Third, does the introduction or incorporation of a stipulation for the giving of a notice of readiness make the start of laytime more or less predictable as between seller and buyer? Finally should a loading and discharge code in a sale contract actully be called a "laytime and demmurrage clauses"?

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• 제26권3호
• /
• 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?

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.205-223
• /
• 1998

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• 제29권1호
• /
• pp.47-66
• /
• 2013

This article reviews some problems arises from signing by the master bills of lading issued on time chartered ship. The underlying purpose of time charters is generally for the charterers to have the services of the vessel in order to engage in the business of carriage of goods by sea, a business which is likely to involve the issue of bills of lading to shippers. Charterer under the charter have a right to issue B/L, thereby the master must sign bill of lading as presented, but may not vary the contract. Bills of lading signed by, or on behalf of the master, impose contractual liabilities upon the shipowner. Charterer have no right to ask the master to sign a bill of lading in any way deviating from the charterparty. If the shipowner suffers loss as a result of the master obeying any order about employment or agency, he will be entitled to an indemnity from the charterer. The master may refuse to sign bills of lading which contain some discrepancy such as a false statement and manifestly inconsistent with the requirements of the charterparty.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• 제39권1호
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2015

At marine construction sites, there are problems with regard to dispute on the responsibility of safety management of chartered barge and its legal issues. In general, demise charter with crew is used for barge charterparty which is committed to the marine construction. Although Chapter 5 of the Korean Commercial Act enact provisions regulating a Time Chargerparty and a Bareboat Charterparty, it is difficult to clarify where the responsibility lies with regard to the safety control of the chartered barge. For this reason, disputes on accountability arise when accident occurs in effect. As a result, parties of the charterparty shift the responsibility on each other and there is increased risk for occurrence of similar accidents. There is no legally required qualification for a head of barge workers who is in charge of barge management. It is not possible to demand the head of barge workers to take charge of tasks which requires professional judgment as a marine technician considering his daily work scope. Furthermore, the barge committed to the marine construction as a form of bareboat charter or equipment charterage is an object which should be managed by safety supervisor of the charterer's marine construction. The charterer bears a duty to manage the safety of the barge. Therefore, the charterer is generally liable for the damage incurred in the course of using the chartered barge.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• 제28권1호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제24권2호
• /
• pp.19-41
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study aims to explore scope of damages resulted from early redelivery under time charter with the Golden Victory case. In this case, disputes arose in relation to the quantum of damages recoverable by th owners. The owners contended that the second Gulf War was irrelevant to their claim, which was to be assessed at the difference between the charter rate and the lower market rate for the whole of the remaining four-year period of the charterparty. The charterers contended that since clause 33 would have entitled them to cancel the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War, two years after the repudiation, the owners' claim for damages only ran for those two years. There was no such rule as was contended for by the owners, and that the damages had to reflect the fact that, had there been no repudiatory breach, the charterparty would not have run its full term because the charterers would have cancelled the charter on the outbreak of the second Gulf War.