• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제21권4호
• /
• pp.75-101
• /
• 2005

Every time charter must have a final terminal date, that is a date by which the charterer is contractually obliged to redeliver the vessel. Where the law implies a margin or tolerance beyond an expiry date stipulated in the charter party, the final terminal date comes at the end of such implied extension. When the parties have agreed in the charter party on the margin or tolerance to be allowed, the final terminal date comes at the end of such agreed period. But the nature of a time charter is that the charter is for a finite period of time and when the final terminal date arrives the charterer is contractually bound to redeliver the vessel to the owner References to delivery and redelivery are strictly inaccurate since the vessel never leaves the possession of the shipowner, but the expression are conventionally used to describe the time when the period of the charter begins and ends. The legitimacy or otherwise of what is to be regarded as a vessel's final voyage must be judged at the time when the charterers give an order for the vessel to carry out the voyage in question, and then by reference to what they order her to do. The purpose of this paper aims to analyse cases on the final voyage of time charter, and specially to explore implications of the final voyage in time charter through the Gregos case.

• 한국중재학회지:중재연구
• /
• 제30권4호
• /
• pp.163-177
• /
• 2020

There are several ways to implement charter parties in the operation of the vessel. Under the time charter party, the charterer borrows the vessel from the shipowner and uses the vessel to benefit his business. The time charter party's legal relationship can be divided into internal and external relationships. This article deals with an internal relationship. The legal matters between the shipowner and charterer are regulated by the agreement. The NYPE is the most widely circulated type of time charter party. According to the NYPE, navigational matters fall upon the shipowner while business matter falls upon the time charterer. There are vague parts in interpreting NYPE articles. NYPE Art. 8, called the employment clause, is one of them. The Master employed by the shipowner should follow the order of the charterer. Whether the charterer has the right to order the Master of the vessel to follow the navigating route recommended by him was addressed in the Hill Harmony case by the UK Supreme Court. The court was affirmative. Under the Ocean Victory case, whether the time charterer has an obligation to order the Master to go out to escape heavy weather from the berth at the port was at issue. The Japanese lower court decided negatively. There is a tendency that many countries insert default rule in the maritime law to apply it to the case at issue in a case where there is no agreement. It serves the enhancement of legal stability; China, Japan, and Germany are such countries. The author thinks that Korea should follow the above three countries' revision of their maritime law.

• 무역학회지
• /
• 제45권1호
• /
• pp.119-135
• /
• 2020

It is well-known that if a claim for damage [Note: Damage can be singular or plural] is made based on a breach of contract, calculating the existence and magnitude of certain profits to be deducted based on the damage can be problematic. In the case of a time charter party, even if the early redelivering vessel by the time charterers constitutes a breach of contract, it is still not an exception. In particular, interest in the shipping business seems to be relatively high in terms of how claims for damage by ship owners have been adjusted. In the case of the New Flamenco, there is a debate over whether or not to deduct the difference between the sale price immediately after redelivering the ship and the sale price upon expiration of the contract from the damage based on the breach of contract for the early time charter redelivery vessel. This paper focuses on this case since it appears to be of practical importance and has implications on how to calculate the amount of damage in the case of cancellation for early redelivery vessel in a time charter party.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제70권
• /
• pp.39-65
• /
• 2016

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.

• 한국항해항만학회지
• /
• 제38권1호
• /
• pp.81-87
• /
• 2014

국제 유가의 상승과 해양에너지 개발에 필요한 기술이 진보됨에 따라 시추선(drillship), 부유식 원유생산저장설비(FPSO) 등과 같은 해양플랜트의 수요가 꾸준히 증가하고 있는 추세이다. 더불어 이러한 해양에너지 개발사업이 원활하게 이행될 수 있도록 작업을 지원해주는 다양한 종류의 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 건조, 매매, 용선 시장 역시 꾸준한 성장세를 유지하고 있다. 하지만, 국내의 경우 해양플랜트 지원선박과 관련된 정기용선계약 체결 건수가 전무하기 때문에 향후 이와 관련된 선박의 매매 또는 용선계약 시 발생할 수 있는 다양한 법적 분쟁과 준거법 적용에 대한 실무적인 연구가 적극적으로 진행될 필요가 있다. 따라서 이 논문은 "SUPPLYTIME 2005"라고 통칭되고 있는 해양플랜트 지원선박용 정기용선계약서식을 중심으로 기존의 정기용선계약과 다른 특징을 개요적으로 검토함과 동시에 당사자 간에 발생할 수 있는 법적 분쟁에 대한 준거법 지정과 중재의 적용에 대한 실무적인 내용과 절차에 대해 살펴보고자 한다.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제23권3호
• /
• pp.29-51
• /
• 2007

Achilleas호 사건은 정기용선계약에서 용선자의 반선지연에 의한 선주의 상실수익과 그 손해배상청구와 관련된 사안이다. 이 사건에서 중재판정부는 정기용선계약상의 반선지연이, (1) 다음의 계약에 대한 지연, (2) 드라이독에 대한 지연, (3) 본선의 매매에 대한 지연 등을 초래할 수 있다고 말하고, 이들이 반선지연에 대한 위험이라는 것을 해운업에 종사하는 자에게는 이미 인식되고 있으며, 또 시장이 항상 변동한다는 것도 알려져 있는 사실이라는 것을 인정하였다. 그리고 손해의 범위가 예상한 것보다 컸다는 사실은 손해배상청구상에 문제가 되지 않으며, 선주가 주장하는 손해의 종류가 추가사항의 체결 시에 당사자에 의한 계약위반으로부터 발생한 것이기 때문에 선주의 주요한 청구는 '통상손해'에 해당한다고 하여 중재인 다수결로 이것을 인정하였다. 이것에 비해 용선자는 지금까지 반선지연에 대해 상실수익이 인정된 선례는 없기 때문에 일반적으로 알려진 손해배상액의 산정기준은 동 원칙의 '통상손해'에 기초하여 반선해야 할 일자로부터 실제로 반선된 일자까지의 시장용선료와 계약용선료와의 차액을 근거로 해야 한다는 것이다. 따라서 상실수익이 손해배상액으로서 인정되기 위해서는 동 원칙의 '특별손해'를 근거로 용선자가 계약체결 시에 스케줄대로 반선하는 것이 중요하다는 취지의 통지를 받고 반선지연에 의한 손해에 대해 책임을 진다는 것을 인식하고 있었던 것이 필요하다고 주장하여 상소하였다. 본 연구에서는 정기용선계약에서 반선지연에 의한 선주의 상실수익과 그 손해배상청구와 관련된 지금까지의 여러 판례를 분석한 후, 특히 Achilleas호 사건 판결내용을 중심으로 그 함축된 의미를 고찰하는데 목적을 두고 있다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제39권
• /
• pp.251-280
• /
• 2008

A party to the charter will not be able to rely upon the doctrine of frustration if an event which makes further performance impossible has been caused by his breach of the charter. Strictly speaking, this is not a situation of frustration at all but rather a case of discharge of the contract by breach. In the Sea Angel case, the defendant entered into a Lloyd's Standard Form of Salvage Agreement with owners of the casualty on the LOF 2000 form, incorporating the SCOPIC clause. The time charter was on the terms of the Shelltime 4 form. This case the trial of the action brought by the claimants owners of the vessel Sea Angel claiming outstanding hire from the defendant charterers. This Case was issued whether charterparty frustrated by refusal of port authorities to issue "No Demand Certificate" allowing port clearance pending payment of oil spillage clean-up costs. The court concluded that no attempt had yet been made to invoke the assistance of the Pakistani court to obtain the release of the vessel. There was not so radical or fundamental a change in the obligation assumed by defendant as to establish frustration. The purpose of this study aims to analyse frustration and time charter in the Sea Angel case.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제5권
• /
• pp.73-95
• /
• 1993

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제43권
• /
• pp.117-142
• /
• 2009

The purpose of this paper is to examine the basic principles for the examination of documents in terms of the basic duty to examine the documents, the time allowed to the banks to examine the documents, linkage among the documents, the originality of documents and their issuers, and the rejection formula of documents. Further this author would look at the changes of particular transport document including bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading and so on. From the seller's perspective, the changes of the principles and individual documents under UCP600 are the most important in the sense that they affect the criteria against which the payment is made. The major changes include the omission of the phrase "with reasonable care", in terms of the basic examination principles, substitute the phrase "five banking days following the day of presentation" for the phrase "reasonable time, not to exceed seven banking days following the days of receipt of documents", introduce the new wording about the linkage between the documents tendered, and make clear the meaning of the originality of documents as well as the rejection formula. For transport documents, even though dealing with bill of lading, charter-party bill of lading, transport document covering at least two different modes of transport, freight-forwarder bill of lading and freight collect transport documents, this paper focuses on the "transhipment" of bill of lading and the definition of charter-party bill of lading. Thus, UCP has been changed several times to reflect the new banking customs and practice. It, however, would not answer every questions which users and banks will raise. These questions may be best answered in the particular underlying contract. The UCP are necessary but not a sufficient instrument for the smooth operation of an international trade transaction. The rules are now out: it remains to be seen what the players do with it.

• 한국항만경제학회지
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• pp.231-246
• /
• 2009

정기용선(Time Charter)은 운항선사가 자본력이 약하거나, 일시적으로 선복이 부족할 경우, 일정기간 타선사의 선박을 빌려 운항하려 할 때 이용되는 방식이다. 정기용선기간 동안 용선주의 선박운항에 따른 이익관계는 선속유지 및 연료유 사용량에 크게 의존하고 있고, 이에 대한 분쟁이 발생하게 됨을 볼 수 있다. 분쟁의 주요 원인은 용선계약서상에 선속 및 연료유 사용에 대한 제약 조항인 약(about), 좋은 날씨(good weather), 조용한 바다(smooth water), 대양해류(ocean current), 특정된 선속 및 연료유 사용에 대해 담보하지 않은 경우(without guarantee) 등이 있다. 판례와 중재판정에서는 좋은 날씨(good weather)를 풍력계급표(Beaufort Scale)상 4라 하였으며, 이 때 너울의 높이는 1.25m 이내로 정의하고 있다. 해류는 역조의 영향을 배제한다는 조항(No Adverse Current)이 있다면 좋은 날씨에 항해를 했다하더라도 역조구간은 제외되어야 한다. 정기용선계약서에서 사용되는 약(about)은 선속에 대하여는 특정된 선속에 0.5kt의 감속과 연료유 사용량에서는 5%의 증감을 적용한다고 했다. 부담보(Without Guarantee)의 경우 선주는 계약의 신의성실의 원칙에 의해 면책특권을 향유할 수 있지만, 재용선을 줄 때는 특권을 향유할 수 없다는 것이 일반적이다. 용선된 선박의 선속 저하로 발생한 시간손실과 절감된 연료유와 상계는 영국법상 정기용선계약서에 특정하지 않을 경우 원칙적으로 인정을 하고 있다. 좋은 기상에 대한 기상회사의 항해분석 보고서와 항해일지가 일치하지 않을 경우에는 정기용선계약서에 항해일지가 우선한다는 특정이 없을 경우 기상회사의 보고서가 우선하여 적용되며, 정당한 사유가 없는 한 선주의 대리인인 선장은 단거리 항로를 항해해야할 의무가 있다는 것이 Hill Harmony 판례로 확인되었다. 정기용선계약서상에 사용하는 이들 문구나 조항의 정의를 명확히 정의하고 명기하여야 분쟁을 예방할 수 있다.