• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.21 no.4
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.26 no.5
• /
• pp.481-489
• /
• 2002

The purpose of this paper is to construct the model that enables to estimate the amount of tanker voyage charter by region or by ship size. This paper decomposed the mechanism of voyage and time charter step by step, and apply the accumulated date of KMI chartering database. The results of the estimation is that the amount of voyage charter in 2007 will be 25,751 or 23.3% increase compared with that of 2000. And the amount of voyage charter in Korea will be 9.3% of the world amount, and will be 26.6% of the Far East amount.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.4
• /
• pp.125-136
• /
• 2020

Freight charges are one of the major clauses in the voyage charter. However, in case of unexpected delays at loading and discharging ports, the owner of the ship would not be willing to cover the various costs he should bear by paying the freight receives from the charterer. Therefore, the shipowner, whose time and the ship would be both considered to be an expense, would try to reduce the laytime as least as possible when signing the charter party and to receive compensation such as demurrage and damage for detention from the charterer, just waiting for the agreed laytime to pass. In this study, we review the differences between demurrage and damage for detention and examine the acknowledgeable circumstances through the actual cases. Since the shipowner and the charterer do not often agree on the damage for detention from the respective contract, it is necessary to examine each. Besides, the shipowner and the charterer must acquaint the damage for detention and specify in a contract, to compensate for the actual loss of the shipowner.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• 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 the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.5 no.2
• /
• pp.89-98
• /
• 1981

Presently, there are some means of voyage estimations such as Hire base, Charter base, and Anticpated income and expenditure statement of voyage. The former two are the means of estimation for profit of a ship's voyage per a deadweight tonnage adn a month, and it is well used in the case of chartered ships. But it is somewhat meaningless for the shpowner who runs his ships for himself. The latter means for estimation is mainly used in western shipping, and do not set forth simpler way of comparing profit with another voyage or with another ship's employing in other route. And this paper has yielded an index of ship's voyage profit evaluation by building a model of ship's voyage evaluation formula, and the index may be used in evaluation of the new investigation of shipping as well as setting out a shiop in a voyage. The model has yielded a break even curve which may be used for deciding the amount of demurrage and the period of ship's port time for a specific voyage contraction.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.55-73
• /
• 2011

The purpose of this study aims to analyse the effect of class arbitration under voyage charter with Asbatankvoy form. This study analyses the Stolt-Nielsen case as a data. In this case, One Class Rule requires an arbitrator to determine whether an arbitration clause permits class arbitration. The parties selected an arbitration panel, designated New York City as the arbitration site, and stipulated that their arbitration clause was silent on the class arbitration issue. The panel determined that the arbitration clause allowed for class arbitration, but the District Court vacated the award. But the Second Circuit reversed, holding that because petitioners had cited no authority applying a maritime rule of customs and usage against class arbitration, the arbitrators' decision was not in manifest disregard of maritime law; and that the arbitrators had not manifestly disregarded New York law, which had not established a rule against class arbitration. However, the Supreme Court held, imposing class arbitration on parties who have not agreed to authorize class arbitration is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.67
• /
• pp.97-118
• /
• 2015

This study reviews the judgements by the Korean Supreme Court on the time of delivery of goods, as it depends on which bonded place the goods are kept for the purpose of the customs clearance. Thereafter, this study analyzes the Ocean Carrier's liability, when the cargoes are mis-delivered without the presentation of bill of lading in relation to the specific bonded place such as an independent bonded warehouse or a self-use bonded warehouse. Furthermore, considering that voyage charter is a kind of marine transport, this study also reviews whether or not the Court's judgements, which has been developed in respect of the carriage of affreightment, could be applied to voyage charter in respect of the time of delivery goods and the Ocean Carrier's liability for mis-delivery. Lastly, in the case that the substantial importer takes the goods from the independent bonded warehouse without the presentation of bill of lading after the customs clearance, it is noted that the Court has made the Ocean Carrier liable for the mis-delivery through the application of theory of double deposit contract. The position of the Court would be understandable in terms of the protection for the bona-fide holder of bill of lading, but this study reviews the limitation of liability as the device for the protection of the Ocean Carrier, considering the situation where the Ocean Carrier is somewhat unreasonably sacrificed under the bonded system provided for the convenience of substantial importer.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.149-176
• /
• 2009

In Count case, the owners claimed from the charterers the amount of their loss resulting from the delay to the Count caused by the blockage of the channel due to stranding of the Pongola on the ground that this loss resulted from breach by the charterers of the safe port provisions. The Claim was referred to arbitration and dealt with on written submission. In a reasoned award, the arbitrators upheld the owners' claim. The charterers seek an order reversing the award or remitting it to the arbitrators for further consideration : (1) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port of Beira was unsafe and that in consequence the charterers were liable to the owners in damages for detention. (2) That the tribunal was wrong to find that the port was unsafe in the abstract by reference to the fact that two other vessels had grounded there. (3) Having held that the Count was delayed for a little over four days by the fact that, after the charterers had nominated the port, the Pongola had grounded in the access channel, the tribunal should have held that the port was not prospectively unsafe. On the that the grounding the Pongola was caused by the characteristics which made the port an unsafe port to nominate for the Count. The court was held that it was not an independent event which broke the chain of causation between the breach of contract and the owner's loss. For those reasons, the court was upheld the arbitrator's award.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.28 no.1
• /
• 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 Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.128-135
• /
• 2020

Long-term shipping contracts represent the cooperative and coexisting relationships between the shipping and steel industries. Yet, differences between the contract forms for iron ore and steel products have emerged. Specifically, the large proportion of consecutive voyage charters (CVC) is being applied in the iron ore trade, whereas the contract of affreightment (COA) is proportionally higher for shipping steel products. The literature review and in-depth interviews in this study identified through the research model, the characteristics of the shipping and market structure in both markets have significantly contributed to the preference of different long-term contracts. It has been determined that the mutual oligopoly market structure and the characteristics of shipping such as, the small number of suitable vessels in the market, the single fixed load/discharge ports, the long-distance voyages, and the potential risks for fatal accidents because of cargo liquefaction, for the iron ore trade, provide higher contribution to the preference of CVC contracts. In contrast, the consignor oligopoly market structure and the shipping characteristics, such as the greater number of suitable vessels available in the market, the variation in ports, the cargo quantity per shipment, the various load/discharge ports, and the need for experienced carriers for steel product loading in the steel product trade has shown higher preference on the COA contracts as the consignors with superiority over the shipowners, resulting in favorable contract types and conditions for the consignors.