Shell Time Charter Party Agreement

The charterers argued that their orders were given for a last legitimate trip under section 19 and, therefore, that the owners demerited against the charter holiday, when they ordered the master not to fulfill those orders. The owners argued that the orders were for one last illegitimate trip and that they were not required to comply. The vessel was delivered as part of the charter festival on July 28, 1987. The delivery window was January 8 – February 17, 1989. A vessel was chartered for a period of five years in a modified Shelltime 4 form. During the duration of the charter charter sent messages to the owners: «If this charter at the time, to which this charter would normally end in accordance with Point 4, where the vessel is in ballast transport to a transload port or on a busy voyage, charterers must continue to use the vessel at the same speeds and conditions as those applicable to it, as long as it is necessary to make this ballast voyage or to make a loaded voyage and return to a subsequent delivery port, as is provided for in this case.» On December 16, 1988, Diecharter issued travel orders for the vessel, which was considering a new delivery on March 7, 1989, well outside the delivery window. After some discussions about the validity of these orders, the owners refused to accept them and insisted to the Master not to comply. The charterers then re-delivered the vessel on January 14, 1989. In a recent arbitration proceeding, a panel of three London arbitrators ruled on the meaning and effect of a notice pursuant to Article 3 of the Shelltime 4 form. «Owners agree to lease the vessel for a period of 12 months (up to 20 charter days) with an additional option of 6 months to be registered at least 45 days before the first period expires, as of the date and time of delivery of the vessel.» – allegedly for the announcement of the condition of the tank coverings in accordance with clause 3 (iii) of the charter party; and a notification under item 3 Iii indicates that the owners were guilty at that time of a breach of their obligations under item 3 (i), that is, they did not meet their obligations with respect to the ship`s terms and conditions with due diligence.

In the Tribunal`s view, the view of the notice of contract is comparable to injunctions to go to a particular port that bears the tacit promise that the port is safe, i.e. that the conditions for the imposition of a lawful order are met. An unlawful injunction from the charterers to the owners is not only inoperative, but is treated as a breach of contract. Similarly, the Tribunal found that the deadline for submitting such a notification was met, given that a notification under Article 3 III had been made. In addition, the communication referred to in point 3 iii boils down to a tacit request to the owners to correct the situation that justifies the disclosure. In the event that the owners were previously diligent in fulfilling the maintenance obligations of the vessel imposed by the charter party, the notice was illegitimate under section 3 iii. In this case, the charterers also made an express request to the owners to correct the situation, which the court found to be a violation of the charter holiday. In support of their position, the charterers argued that section 19 exempts charterers from responsibility for late surrender after a final legal trip and also authorizes the awarding of orders for an otherwise illegitimate last trip.

The owners only accepted the first proposal. Throughout the charter service, the owners, whenever time passes, become signs of wear or … requires that steps be taken to preserve or restore the conditions set out in Clauses 1 and 2, Point (a), and that it exercise due diligence to preserve or restore the vessel. The original response of the owners was to require a declaration from a court (which had already been formed to adjudicate other disputes in the context of the

Posted by | View Post | View Group

You can't leave comments on this post but you can leave a trackback here: