IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1998
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN-
Claimants
(Owners)
- and -
Respondents
(Charterers)
"………………………….. "
Charterparty dated 5th February 2002
INTERIM FINAL ARBITRATION AWARD
WHEREAS:
1.
The Claimants are the owners (hereinafter referred to as "the Owners") of the motor
vessel "……………………. " It was their case that, by a charterparty
-2-
on the basis of the "GENCON" form evidenced by a fixture recap dated 5th February 2002,
they had chartered their motor vessel "………………………… " to the Respondents as
charterers (hereinafter referred to as "the Charterers") for the carriage of minimum 4,800
metric tons (up to full and complete cargo capacity of the vessel in the Charterers' option)
steel products from Astrakhan (Russian Federation) to Bandar Anzali or Bandar Nowshahr
(Islamic Republic of Iran) on terms and conditions more particularly set out in the said fixture
recap. The Charterers denied that they had ever entered into any written agreement or any
written arbitration agreement although they accepted that their cargo was loaded onto the
"………………………." at Astrakhan for discharge at Bandar Anzali or Bandar Nowshahr.
The Owners said that the fixture recap message provided for arbitration in London pursuant
to the L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure and for English law to apply. They further said that
Clause 33 of the charterparty drawn up by the Owners' managers in accordance with the
concluded fixture as (evidenced by the fixture recap) provided:
"This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and
any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Contract shall be referred to
arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory
modification or re-enactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the
provisions of this Clause.
The arbitration shall be concluded in accordance with the London Maritime
Arbitrators Association (the "L.M.A.A.") Small Claims Procedure current at the time
when the arbitration proceedings are commenced."
Disputes, hereinafter more particularly defined, arose between the parties for the
determination of which the Owners applied to the Honorary Secretary of the London
Maritime Arbitrators Association (the "L.M.A.A.") for the appointment of a sole arbitrator by
the President, pursuant to Paragraph 2(b) of the L.M.A.A.
-3-
Small Claims Procedure 2002. In response to that application the President appointed me,
Patrick O'Donovan, of Churcham House, 1 Bridgeman Road, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11
9AJ, to be the sole arbitrator under the L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure. I am a Member of
the Baltic Exchange in the City of London and a Full Member of the London Maritime
Arbitrators Association.
Pursuant to the L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure and/or the provisions of the fixture note
and charterparty referred to in Recital 2 above, the seat of the arbitration is in England.
The disputes referred to me concerned the Owners' claim for a balance of demurrage in the
sum of US$6,038.13, together with various ancillary expenses in the amount of £1,350 and
US$1,650 (claimed as US$3,745.54), being expenses and disbursements incurred as a result
(it was said) of the Charterers' unlawful refusal to sign the charterparty. They also asked me
to make an interim declaratory award confirming that the charterparty drawn up by their
managers (……………………………) and presented to the Charterers for signature is the
charterparty governing the contractual relations between the parties.
The Charterers denied liability for the sum claimed and denied that they were in breach of
contract. They raised a preliminary point as to my jurisdiction on grounds set out more fully
below. As indicated above, they denied that the fixture recap evidenced the terms of the
agreement and they contested the validity of the alleged charterparty agreement dated 5th
February 2002, asserting that the parties had never entered into any written agreement and
that the charterparty was drawn up only after the cargo was delivered to the receivers. They
said that they were at all times in full compliance with their duties to ship and deliver goods
to the receiver and were at no time in breach of any contractual duties towards the Claimants
"since such duties never existed", They said that they had already paid to the Owners the sum
of US$26,000 in full and final settlement of the Owners' demurrage claim. They denied that
they were in breach of any agreement or of any duty owed to the Owners (and thus
.4-
denied liability for the miscellaneous expenses and disbursements claimed). They said that
they were entitled to refuse to sign a back-dated charterparty agreement that they said did not
conform with the original terms of the performance under the initial oral negotiations.
The reference proceeded as envisaged under the L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure by the
exchange of written submissions between …………………………………………... in
Istanbul and the Charterers' lawyers in Nicosia, ……………. Neither party requested an oral
hearing. Following the exchange of submissions, I proceeded to consider the matter on the
basis stated.
Preliminary objection as to jurisdiction
The Charterers contested my jurisdiction on the basis that both parties are corporate bodies
duly incorporated in Cyprus. They said that the parties had never entered into any written
agreement or any written arbitration agreement and had never signed any agreements or
documents which included an arbitration clause. They said that they had never expressed
their desire to have disputes referred to arbitration in London and that on the contrary they
(the Charterers) had stated their intention to the Claimants to have any claims referred to the
Cyprus courts for resolution in accordance with Cypriot law.
The first point to make is that, as a matter of English law, even if a party asserts that an
arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal is nevertheless competent to rule on its
own jurisdiction. What is known in some jurisdictions as "kompetenz kompetenz'' is
enshrined in Section 30(1) of the Arbitration Act (1996) in the following terms.
"30. - (1) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the arbitral tribunal may rule on its
own substantive jurisdiction, that is, as to(a) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement,
(b) whether the tribunal is properly constituted, and
-5-
(c) what matters have been submitted to arbitration in accordance with the
arbitration agreement."
In fact, this was not disputed by the Charterers who, in instructing lawyers and providing
written submissions on the matter, clearly envisaged that I would provide a binding
determination as to my own jurisdiction.
10. The
question
of
whether
or
not
there
is
a
valid
arbitration
agreement
is
intimately bound up with the question of whether (as the Owners asserted and
the
Charterers
denied)
the
terms
of
the
contract
between
the
parties
was
evidenced by the fixture recap and the charterparty drawn up by the Owners'
managers and it is to that question that I now turn.
The terms of the contract
11. It was the Owners' case that the contract was concluded through a chain of brokers consisting
of …………………………… of Samara,…………………….. of Istanbul and
of
Vienna. The Charterers expressly denied this although elsewhere in their submissions they
accepted that ……………………… were their brokers and accepted that negotiations for the
carriage of the steel product were conducted between Bertling and the Owners. The precise
chain of communication and the precise status of any intermediate brokers (other than the
Charterers' own brokers, Bertling) is irrelevant in the context of the present dispute.
12. The Owners said that the negotiations leading to the formation of the contract were conducted
through internet correspondence and that the results of the negotiation were documented in
(and evidenced by) a fixture recap e-mail prepared by Caspian International on behalf of the
Charterers. That recap (with some minor amendments) was (the Owners said) approved by
them and the vessel was then firmly fixed for the voyage in question, as evidenced by an email fixture recap from Caspian International stating:
-6-
U
PLSD TO CONFIRM HAVING FIXED CLEAN AS PER FOLLOWING
RECAPITULATION OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF FIXTURE...*
13.
The Owners further said that on or about 15th May 2002 the Charterers' brokers, Bertling,
drafted a charterparty which the Owners found contained some small mistakes - although,
with the exception of those mistakes, it did correspond to the fixture recap. There were no
discrepancies in the arbitration clause. They said that on 10th March 2003 their managers
sent to Bertling a draft of the charterparty which was prepared in line with the concluded
fixture. The Owners said that the Charterers refused to confirm or comment on the draft but
had simply replied that they were waiting for their lawyer's opinion. In fact, it duly became
apparent that the Charterers did not intend to (and would not) sign the charterparty.
14.
As indicated above, the Charterers denied the Owners' account of the fixture negotiations and
the status of (i) the fixture recap e-mail and (ii) the charterparty drawn up by the Owners'
managers. They said that they had never signed the alleged charterparty agreement dated 5th
February 2002.
15. Their case was that around the beginning of February 2002 they were urgently
searching for a vessel for a voyage to Iran and that at about that time they were
orally notified by their brokers, Bertling, that a vessel was available at the port
of loading. They said that following a short oral negotiation between Bertling
and the Owners, their cargo was loaded on the "M/v…………………..". They
said that they never came into contact either in writing or orally with the Owners
and that no charterparty agreement or any other kind of agreement had ever
been presented to them. They asserted they had never received the e-mail recap
dated 5th February 2002. It was their case that the alleged charterparty was
only drafted after the cargo was delivered and the receivers had commenced
litigation proceedings against the Owners. They said that, when it was sent to
them with instructions to sign, it was not even signed by the Owners. They said
-7-
they were justified in refusing to sign a back-dated charterparty agreement that was not in
conformance with "the original terms of performance under the initial oral negotiations
between the [Owners] and ....... Bertling."
They did not,
however, say what those "terms of performance" were.
16. It seemed to me that the Charterers' case was quite hopeless and flew in the face of normal
shipping practice. As the Owners said, it is common chartering practice that, at the end of
negotiations for the charter of a vessel, a document recording the terms of the agreement is
drawn up, commonly referred to either as a "fixture recapitulation" or "fixture recap", which
records the terms of the agreement between the parties, often (as here) by reference to a pro
forma charterparty. The Charterers' case that the negotiations were all conducted orally and
the outcome never reduced to writing was simply incredible. The Charterers accepted that
demurrage was due under the contract (whatever that was) and that the Owners were entitled
to exercise a lien. It is inconceivable that these complex provisions were simply confirmed
during a telephone conversation between Bertling and the Owners. Countless other provisions
would need to be dealt with and agreed during the negotiations that were not relevant in the
context of this dispute and it seemed to me quite absurd to suggest that those terms would
never have been reduced to writing.
17. As I indicated above, the Charterers were not able (nor did they attempt) to say to what extent
the fixture recap e-mail did not accord with the terms agreed. They did not point to any other
documents evidencing the terms of the contract. Indeed, their case was wholly inconsistent
since on the one hand they argued that there was no contract (the effect of their denial that
they "were at no time in breach of any contractual duties towards the [Owners] since such
duties never existed"); on the other hand they accepted that there was a contract (as they had
to, because they shipped cargo on board the vessel) but maintained that it was concluded
wholly orally.
-8-
18. In the absence of any persuasive (or indeed any) evidence as to what other terms the vessel
might have been fixed on, I had no hesitation at all in concluding that the fixture recap e-mail
enclosed at Annex 1 did indeed evidence the terms of the contract concluded between the
parties. I was assisted in reaching that conclusion by the fact that the Charterers throughout
performed entirely in accordance with the terms of the recap: they loaded the vessel, paid the
freight, ordered the exercise of a lien on the cargo and paid demurrage in accordance with its
terms. They never objected at that time to the existence of a charterparty or to any of the
terms asserted by the Owners.
It was not disputed that Bertling had authority to negotiate on the Owners' behalf and, as
indicated above, the fact that there were a number of intermediate brokers was irrelevant. I
should stress that Bertling (the Charterers' own brokers) drew up a charterparty which, whilst
it contained some small mistakes, was based entirely on (and was wholly consistent with) the
fixture recap of 5th February 2002.
20. Much play was made by the Charterers of the fact that the charterparty drawn up by the Owners'
broker was never signed by either party and that it was drawn up some time after the event.
The first point to make is that, as a matter of English law, it is not a requirement for a valid
charterparty that it be signed by either or both parties. All that matters is that it reflects the
agreement concluded between the parties (as Annex 2 did). Similarly, as a matter of
chartering practice it is not at all uncommon for charterparties to be drawn up after the event indeed, it would be virtually impossible for a typed-up charterparty to be brought into
existence simultaneously with the conclusion of the agreement between the parties. What
happened here is quite normal.
21. In the circumstances, I had no hesitation in finding as a fact that the contract between the
Owners and Charterers, was evidenced by the fixture recap e-mail attached at Annex 1. I also
had no hesitation in concluding that the terms of the charterparty drawn up by the Owners'
managers and attached hereto at Annex 2
-9-
was correctly drawn up in accordance with the fixture recap and in accordance with the
agreement concluded between the parties.
22. Having found that a contract existed on the terms set out in the fixture recap and the
"……………" charterparty drawn up by the Owners' managers, I next had to consider
whether it contained a London arbitration clause incorporating the provisions of the L.M.A.A.
Small Claims Procedure. It plainly did because the recap said so. The Charterers adduced no
evidence whatsoever to support their allegation that they were insisting on the jurisdiction of
the Cyprus Court and Cypriot law. It is to be noted that they did not go so far as to say that the
parties had agreed Cyprus law and jurisdiction - such a submission was bound to fail because
it was contradicted by the express terms of the contract. The Charterers5 own brokers included
a London arbitration clause in their draft charterparty (providing for English law and the
L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure). Accordingly, I had no hesitation in concluding that the
contract did contain an arbitration clause in the terms asserted by the Owners and that I have
jurisdiction to determine the disputes that have arisen.
The claim for outstanding demurrage
23. It was not in dispute that demurrage was incurred at the port of discharge and that, for the
purpose of securing the demurrage payment, the Owners exercised a lien on the cargo with a
view to persuading the receivers to settle the demurrage claim themselves. Similarly, it was
not in dispute that the Charterers had instructed the Owner in writing to lien the cargo and to
release it only upon payment of demurrage and that (again pursuant to the Charterers' written
instructions) the cargo was discharged into a shore warehouse under the Owners' control. It
was also common ground between the parties that, on 14th June 2003, a tri-partite settlement
agreement was reached between the Owners, the Charterers and the receivers whereby the
Owners agreed to accept from the Charterers a reduced amount of demurrage in the sum of
US$26,000 in full and final settlement of the demurrage due.
-10-
24. It was the Owners' case that it was a term of the tri-partite agreement that the receivers would
cease any further proceedings against the Owners/their agents in Iran and would not claim
any damages due to the late delivery of the cargo. The Owners produced a written document
which they said reflected the terms of the amicable settlement but the Charterers asserted this
did not reflect the terms agreed on 14th June 2002. However, they did not specify in what
way that was so and they did not seek to set out precisely what terms had been agreed.
25 In the absence of any positive case as to what other terms had been agreed, I accept that the
written document (attached hereto at Annex 3) did in fact reflect what had been agreed. It is
pertinent to note that it was sent to the Charterers' brokers, Bertling, on 15th June 2002 and
the agreed demurrage due under it was paid by the Charterers on 18th June 2002. The
Charterers produced no contemporaneous evidence that they had ever objected to the terms
relied on by the Owners. On the contrary, the contemporaneous evidence showed that the
written version drawn up by the Owners did reflect the terms agreed and that the Charters
performed their obligations under it (although, as can be seen below, the receivers did not).
26. It was not disputed that demurrage in the sum of US$32,038.13 had been incurred. The only
defence that the Charterers raised to the claim for that demurrage was to say that they had
paid the sum of US$26,000 in full and final settlement pursuant to the agreement dated 14th
June 2002. The Owners retorted that the consideration for their agreeing to accept a lesser
amount was the undertaking to cease any further procedures against the Owners' agents in
Iran and not to claim damages due to delay in delivery. It was common ground that the
receivers have commenced (and maintained) litigation against the Owners/their agents in
Iran. Accordingly, the Owners said, there was a failure of consideration which meant that
they were entitled to claim (and be awarded) the balance of US$6,038.13 (the difference
between the agreed demurrage and the amount paid by the Charterers) under the settlement
agreement.
-11-
27.
It seemed to me that this submission was flawed as a matter of law. There had
not been a total failure of consideration but merely a partial one. The promise
not to pursue proceedings in Iran flowed from the receivers - not the Charterers.
Their promise was to pay the net amount of US$26,000, which they did. In legal
terms, the contract was partly performed and the Owners derived some of the
benefit for which they had bargained. In those circumstances, their claim for the
balance fails (as does the claim for interest for late payment on the amount of
US$26,000 actually paid).
28. As for the miscellaneous expenses, the basis of the claim for these was that they
had been incurred as a result of the Charterers' refusal to sign the charterparty.
It seemed to me that the better way to look at it was that they were costs of the
arbitration which were either recoverable or not, depending on the outcome of the
case. As a matter of English law, costs follow the event. Although the Owners'
claim for the balance of the demurrage failed, they were completely successful as
regards the main dispute between the parties - namely the status of Annexes 1
and 2. The monetary claim was peripheral. Accordingly, I have concluded that
the
Owners
"registration
are
fee"
entitled
(in
fact,
to
their
the
costs
fixed
which
Small
include
Claims
fee
what
of
they
call
the
£1,250
and
the
administration fee of £100 payable to the L.M.A.A. - total £1,350). The Owners
are also entitled to their own costs, comprising the fees and disbursements of
Vassilev Maritime in the total amount of US$1,650. It was not disputed that
these fees had been (or would be) incurred and no objection was taken to them in
principle. Accordingly, they were in principle allowable. They fell within the
amount of costs recoverable under the L.M.A.A. Small Claims Procedure and
accordingly I allowed the claim for fees and disbursements in full (US$3,745.54).
Summary
28. It will be seen that I have found that the terms of the fixture recap dated 5th February 2002
(Annex 1) and the charterparty drawn up by the Owners' managers (Annex 2) accurately
reflected the agreement reached between the
- 12-
parties and that, in the circumstances, I have jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising between
them. The Owners' claim for the unpaid balance of demurrage in the sum of US$6,038.13
fails. The Owners claim for extra expenses in the sum of US$3,745.54 succeeds in full as a
claim for costs. 1 have allowed compound interest on the sums awarded at a commercial rate
for the relevant periods. As requested, I have reserved jurisdiction to deal with the Owners'
claim for "any further damage arising as a result of [the Charterers'] breach of contract".
NOW I the said Patrick O'Donovan, having accepted the burden of this reference, and having
carefully and conscientiously considered the submissions and documents before me and having
given due weight thereto, DO HEREBY MAKE. ISSUE AND PUBLISH this my Interim Final
Award as follows :-
A.
I FIND AND HOLD AND DECLARE that the charterparty drawn up by the
Owners' managers and presented to the Charterers (attached hereto as Annex 2)
is the charterparty governing the contractual arrangements between the parties
and that I have jurisdiction to deal with disputes arising under it.
B.
I FURTHER FIND AND HOLD that the Owners' claim for unpaid demurrage
in the sum of US$6,038.13 fails in its entirety and is hereby dismissed.
C I AWARD AND ADJUDGE that the Charterers shall bear and pay their own and the Owners'
costs of the reference in so far as they relate to the matters herein determined (and I
HEREBY ASSESS AND DETERMINE the Owners' said costs in the sum of US$3,745.54)
PLUS interest thereon at the rate of 3.5% (three and one-half per cent) per annum or pro rata
compounded at three monthly rests from the date of this Award until the date of payment.
d. I DECLARE that this Award, although interim in the reference, is FINAL as to the matters
hereby determined and I RESERVE JURISDICTION to myself to make a further Award or
Awards as may be appropriate in respect of all outstanding disputes between the parties.
-13-
GIVEN
under
my hand
at
the seat
of the
arbitration
in
London
this 16m day of October 2007
…………………
……………..
Sole Arbitrator
Witness
ANNEX 1
Fixture Recap E-Mail
dated 5th February 2000
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
…………………………………………………………. /
Tuesday, 05 February, 2002 4:05. PM
………………….
MV ……………………
…………../………….
GD,
PLS KINDLY SIGN AND STAMP FOLL RECAP:
PLSD TO CONFIRM HAVING FIXED CLEAN AS PER FOLLOWING RECAPITULATION OF
THE TERMS AND CONDmONS OF FIXTURE:
M/V ……………………. DWT 5100 AT
3.57 M SSWD, BLT 1980 RUSSIAN
FLAG T/NT 4949/2146
LOA/BEAM/DEPTH 138.40/16.5/8.0 M
2/2 HO/HA DIMS OF HO: NR 1. 44.40
X 12.45/1330 X 8.0
2. 44.40 X 12.45/13.30 X 8.0 FORE PART OF NR 1 HOLD GOES STEEP 19DEG,
STARTING 6 METRES FROM THE FORE BULKHEAD CU CAP 9363 CBM HATCH
COVERS PIGGY BACK TYPE DIMS OF HA NR 1.44.40X13.30
2. 44.40 X 13.30 GEARLESS, BOXSHAPED, STEEL FLOORED, B+E AFT
EQUIPPED WITH A BOWTHRUSTER AND TWIN SCREW LASSED MSP ICE
20 BY RUSSIAN MARTTTME REGISTER OF SHIPPING
: AND H+M COVERED BY INGOSTSTRAKH MOSCOW
TYPE - DRY CARGO
ALL DETS ABV ARE DEEMED TO BE TRUE AND
CORRECT BUT NO GURANTEE COULD BE GIVEN
FOR:
- ACCT …………………………., CYPRUS, //^. Z>4&4 COUA&
- ABT 4800 UP TO F+C.C.C. IN CHOPT BUT ALWAYS UP TO THE PERMISSABLE
DRAFT IN THE
RUSSIAN RIVER SYSTEM OF STEEL PRODUCTS, UNDER DECK STOWAGE ONLY
- LOAD: 1-2 GSB AT CHOPT ASTRAKHANJ
- DISCH: BANDAR ANZALI OR NOWSHAHR CHOPI—95P-LSB AAAA BE _, I7C 09
FEB - 11 FEB 2002
""" /)
'- LOAD: 800 MTS PWWD OF 24 CONS HRS TIME FROM 1700 ON FRI OR
DAY PRECEDING HOLIDAY TILL 0800 ON MON OR THE DAY AFTER A
HOLIDAY NOT TO COUNT EIU
- DISCH:800 MTS PWWD OF 24 CONS HRS TIME FROM 1200 ON THU OR
DAY PRECEDING HOLIDAY TILL 0800 ON SAT OR THE DAY AFTER A
HOLIDAY NOT TO COUNT EVEN IF USED
- HOLIDAYS AS PER CUSTOMS OF THE PORT BENDS
- FRT USD 19,25PMT FIOS LSD ALL-IN, INCLUDING
ICEBREAKER SURCHARGE
- FRT PAYABLE W/I 3 BD AFTER SIGNING AND/OR RELEASING OF BILLS
OF LADING BUT IN ANY CASE BBB. IN ANY CASE IF CHARTERERS REQUEST FOR
BILLS OF LADING MARKED 'FREIGHT PREAPID' SAME TO BE KEPT IN AGENTS'
CUSTODY UNTIL FREIGHT IS BEING CONFIRMED PAID TO THE OWNERS AND
ONLY AFTER INSTRUCTION IN WRITING FROM THE OWNERS.
- ORIGINAL BS/L MARKED "FREIGHT PREPAID" EOTER
TO BE KEPT IN AGENTS CUSTODY UNTIL FREIGHT IS PAID OR/AND
DESPATCHED BY MASTERS BAG TO DISCHPORT ,~, FDEUCLDNRVAOCLQNL ' > DEM USD 2100 PDPR/FD BE
- UDISP DEM IF ANY PAYABLE WITHIN 10BD AFTER RECEIPT OF
WELL-READABLE FAX OR SCAN COPIES OF NOR, SOF AND T/S
- ANY TAXES/DUES ON CGO/FRT FR CHRTS' ACCT
- VSL FREE OF EXINS
- OABE: NEW AGENT/ISL
- C/P TO INCRPORATE 'GENERAL PARAMOUNT/BOTH-TO-BLAME COLLISION',
'…………………………' AND …….. BUNKERING DEVIATION' CLAUSES (WORDING
AS PER FAX DD.1.02.2002.)
- G/A IN LONDON AS PER Y/A/R 94
- ARB IN LONDON, LMAA SMALL CLAIMS PROCEDURE,ENGLISH LAW
- OWISE CHARTERERS' PROFORMA CHARTER PARTY BSS MV TURICUM/JOYFUL CP
DD.4.04.2001. TO BE LOGICALLY AMMENDED AS PER FMTAND WITH
FOLLOWING
ALTERATIONS: Q
GCN76PARTI
TO BE AMENDED AS PER MAIN TERMS AGREED
GCN 76 PART II
CL 5 DELETE LINES FROM 73 TO 77 (VESSEL IS GEARLESS)
GCN 76 RIDER
CL18 DELETE (CL.10 FROM PART II
COVERING THE MATTER) Tf RMS
IS
AGREED WORDING : OF 800 MJSCL19 TO BE AMENDED AS PER MAIN ' PWWQLOF 24 CONS HRS
CL.21 TO BE WITH THE FOLLOWING V
VESSEL TO BE LOADED AT THE RATE
TIME FROM 1700 ON FRI OR DAY
PRECEDING
i'-.y
AFTER A HOLIDAY NOT TO COUNT EIU. VESSEL TO BE
DISCHARGED AT THE RATE OF 800 MTS PWWD OF 24 CONS HRS TIME FROM
1200 ON THU OR DAY PRECEDING HOLIDAY TILL 0800 ON SAT OR THE DAY
AFTER A HOLIDAY NOT TO COUNT EVEN IF USED. LAYTIME TO BE NON
REVERSIBLE'
CL.23 DELETE WORD 'PERFECTLY'
CL.28 DELETE AS FROM 'COMPULLSORY TALLY...' TILL THE END.
CL.34 TO BE AMENDED AS PER MAIN TERMS AGREED
CL.37 TO BE AMENDED AS PER MAIN TERMS AGREED
CL.38 TO READ IN FULL:
MASTER HAS THE RIGHT TO INSERT EVENTUAL REMARKS ON CARGO IN M/R,
FOR WHICH CHRTS WILL ISSUE LETTER OF INDEMNITY IN OWNS FAVOUR
IN OWNS PANDI WORDING SIGNED BY CHRTS ONLY.
CL.41 TO BE AMENDED AS PER MAIN TERMS AGREED
CL.43 DELETE (THE VESSEL IS GEARLESS)
CL.48 DELETE (NOT RELATIVE TO OUR FIXTURE)
CL.57
THE WORDING OF THE CLAUSE TO BE:
'IN THE CASE THE CHARTERERS FAIL LOAD AND/OR DISCHARGE THE VESSEL
WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED IN CLAUSE 21 THE CHARTERERS ARE TO PAY
DEMURRAGE AT THE RATE OF USD 2100,00 PER DAY PRO RATA AT THE PORTS
OF
LOADING AND DISCHARGING. FREE DESPATCH BOTH AT THE LOADING AND
DISCHARGING PORTS. UNDISPUTABLE DEMURRAGE IF ANY PAYABLE BY CHRTS
WITHIN
10BD AFTER RECEIPT OF WELL-READABLE FAX OR SCAN COPIES OF NOR, SOF
AND T/S.
CL.60 TO BE DELETED (NOT APPICABLE)
CL66 TO BE DELETED CTHE VESSEL IS GEARLESS)
- STEM/S/R APPROVAL GRANTED
- TTL 5.0 PCT ON F/D/D COMM HERE END
cAWAITING YOURS BY FAX
Best regards, …………………………... Tel \ fax: +7
8462 321170 +7 8462 708053 Telex : (64)
914397 E-mail :……………………
3
ANNEX 2
Charterparty dated 5th February 2000 drawn
up by the Owners' Managers
LShipbroker
……………………….
Turkenstrasse 25/ 8/19
1090 Wien
RECOMMENDED THE BALTIC AN0 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE UNIFORM
GENERAL CHARTER (AS REVISED 1 922 and 1 976) INCLUDING "F.I.O."
ALTERNATIVE, ETC. (To be used for trades for which no approved form is in force)
CODE NAME: "GENCON"
z Place and date Istanbul, 05 February 2002
3 Owners/Place of business (CI. 1)
4. Charterers/Place of business (CI, 1)
…………………………………………………...,
………………………. Ltd
Lambousa Street Nicosia, Cyprus
Nicosia
5. Vessel's name (CI. 1)
Cyprus
………………………….
aGRT/NRT(CI.1)
4949/2146
7 Deadweight cargo carrying capacity in tons (abt) (CI. 1)
8 Present position (CI. 1)
abt 4850 metric tonnes
trading
9. Expected ready to load (abt) (C11) 09
February 2002
10. Loading port or place (CI. 1)
11. Discharging port or place (CI. 1)
Astrakhan (Russian Federation)
Bandar Anzali or Bandar Nowshahr (Iran)
1-2 safe always accessible berths
1 safe always accessible berth
12. Cargo (also state quantity and margin in Owners' option, If agreed; if full and complete cargo not agreed state "part cargo" (CI. 1)
about 4800 metric tonnes Up to full and complete capacity in Charterers' option but always up to the permissable draft in the Russian River System
of steel products, under deck stowage only. See also clause 18.
14. Freight payment (state currency and method of payment:
13. Freight rate (also state if payable on delivered or intaken quantity (CI, 1) USD
also beneficiary and bank account) (CI. 4)
19,25 (nineteen dollars and twenty five cents) per metric tonne
In US Dollars to the account stated in the Owners' freight invoice.
See also clause 35
15. Loading and discharging costs (state alternative (a) or (b) of CI. 5; also indicate if
16.Laytime See clause20
vessel is geariess) f.i.o.s.
CI. 5(b) shall apply, Lashing, securing and dunnaqinq of the cargo shall
a)for loading:
be for Charterers' account
b)for discharging:
e) total laytime for loading/discharging:
17. Shippers (Name and address) (CI. 6)
18. Demurrage rate (loading and discharging) (CI. 7)
19 Cancelling date (CI. 10)
USD 2100,- (two thousand and one hundred)
11 February 2002
See also clause 47
20 Brokerage commission and to whom payable (CI. 14)
5.00 % payable as follows: 1,25 % to Caspian International, Samara: 1,25% to Pegasus, Istanbul: 2,50% to F.H. Bertling GmbH
21. Additional clauses covering special provisions, if agreed
From 18 to 48 both inclusive are deemed to be incorporated in this Charter Party,
It is mutually agreed that this Contract shall be performed subject to the conditions contained In this Charter which shall include Part I as well as Part II. In the event of a
conflict of conditions, the provisions of Part I shall prevail over those of Part II to the extent of such conflict
Signature (Owners)
Signature (Charterers)
\r)
PART 11
"Gencon" Charter (As revised 1922 and 1976)
1 It is agreed between the party mentioned in Sox 3 as Owners of the
steamer or motor-vessel named in Box 5, of the gross/net Register
tons indicated in Box 6 and carrying about the number of tons of
deadweight cargo stated in Box 7, now in position as stated in Box 8
and expected ready to load under this Charter about the date indicated
in Box 9, and the party mentioned as Charterers in Box 4
that:
The said vessel shall proceed to the loading port or place stated in Box 10 or
MO near there to as she may safely get and lie always afloat, and [here load afull-and-complete cargo (if shipment of deck cargo agreed same to be at
Charterers risk) as stated in Box 12 (Charterers to provide all mats and/or wood
for dunnage and any separations required, the Owners allowing the use of any
dunnage wood on board if required) which the Charterers bind themselves to
ship, and being so loaded the vessel shall proceed to the discharging port or
place stated in Box 11 as ordered on signing-Bills of Landing so near there to
as she may safely-get and lie always afloat, and there deliver the cargo on being –paid freight on delivered quantity as indicated in Box 13 at the rate
started on Box 13
2 Owners' Responsibility Clause
Owners are to be responsible for loss of or damage to the goods or for delay in
delivery of the goods only in case the loss, damage or delay has been caused
by the improper or negligent stowage of the goods (unless stowage performed
by shippers/Charterers or their stevedores or servants) or by the personal want
of due diligence on the pari of the Owners or their Manager to make the vessel
In all respects seaworthy and to secure that she is properly manned, equipped
and supplied or by the personal act or default of the Owners or their Manager
And the Owners are responsible for no loss or damage or delay arising from
any other cause whatsoever, even from the neglect or default of the Captain or
crew or some other person employed by the Owners on board or ashore for
whose acts they would, but for this clause, be responsible, or from
unseaworthiness of the vessel on loading or commencement of the voyage or at
any time whatsoever Damage caused by contact with or leakage, smell or
evaporation from other goods or by the inflammable or explosive nature or Insufficient package of other goods not to be considered as caused by improper
or negligent stowage, even if in fact so caused.
3 Deviation Clause
The vessel has liberty to call at any port OR ports in any order for any purpose,
to sail without pilots, to tow and/or assist vessels in all situations, and also to
deviate for the purpose of saving life and/ or property
4 Payment of Freight See Clause 35
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………
5 Loading/Discharging Costs
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
4-7
48
48
50
5-1
53
53
54
55
56
57
58
S8
60
6-1
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
6 Laytime See Clause20
*(a)-Separate Laytime for Loading and Discharging
The cargo shall be loaded within the number of running hours as indicated
In Box16 weather permitting Sunday and holidays excepted
Unless used in which event time actually used shall count
The cargo shall be discharged within the number of running hours
as-indicated inbox16 Weather permitting Sundays and holidays excepted
unless used in which event time-actually used shall count
(b) Total Laytime of Loading and discharging
The cargo should be loaded and discharged with the number of total
running hours as indicated in Box16, weather permitting, Sundays and
holydays excepted unless used in which event time actually used
shall count.
(c) Commencement of Laytime (Loading and discharging)
Laytime for loading and discharging shall commence at 1pm if
notice of readiness is given before none and at 6 am next working
day if notice given during office hours after noon. Notice of loading
port to be given shippers named in Box17
Time actually used before commencement of laytime shall count.
Time lost in waiting for berth to count as loading or discharging
Time as the case may be.
'indicate alternative (a) or (b), as agreed, in Box 16
7 Demurrage See Clause_42
Ten running days on demurrage at the rate the rate stated in Box 18 per
day pro rata for any part of a day, payable day by day to be
allowed merchants altogether at ports of loading and discharging
8 Lien Clause
Owners shall have a lien on the cargo for freight, dead-freight,
demurrage and damages for detention. Charterers shall remain responsible for dead-freight and demurrage (including damages for
detention), incurred at port of loading. Charterers shall also remain
responsible for freight and demurrage(including damages for detention) incurred at the port of discharge, but only to such extent as the
Owners have been unable to obtain payment thereof by exercising
the lien on the cargo.
9 Bills of Lading
The Captain to sign Bills of Lading at such rate of freight as
presented without prejudice to this Charter-party, but should the
freight by-Bills-of-Lading-amount-to-less-than-the total-chartered
Freight in the difference should be paid to the Captain in cash on signing
Bills of landing in any case not less than freight agreed in this Charter
Party.
10 Cancelling Clause
Should the vessel not be ready to load (whether in berth or not) on
or before the date indicated in Box 19, Charterers have the option
of cancelling this contract, such option to be declared, if demanded,
at least 48 hours before vessel's expected arrival at port of loading,
should the vessel delayed on account of average or otherwise
Charterers to be informed as soon as possible and the vessel is
delayed for more than 10 days after the day she is stated to be
expected ready to load charterers have the option of Cancelling this
contract unless a cancelling date has been agreed upon
11 General Average
130
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
402
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
General average to be settled according to York-Antwerp Rules,
1974 and subsequent amendments. Proprietors of cargo to pay the
cargo's share in the general
expenses even If the same have been necessitated though neglect or
default of the Owners' servants (see clause 2).
12 Indemnity
131
132
Indemnity for non-performance of this Charter-party, proved damages,
not exceeding estimated amount of freight
13 Agency See Clause41
In every case the Owners shall appoint his own broker or Agent both
all the port of loading an port of discharge
14 Brokerage
A brokerage commission at the rate stated in Box 20 on the freight,
dead freight
earned is due to the party mentioned in Box 20.
In case of non-execution at least 1/3 of the brokerage on the estimated
amount of freight and dead-freight to be paid by the Owners to the
Brokers as indemnity for the tetter's expenses and work. In case of
more voyages the amount of indemnity to be mutually agreed.
15 GENERAL STRIKE CLAUSE
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
120
121
122
123
124
425
-1-26
127
128
129
133
134
135
143
144
145
146
147
148
71
72
7-3
Neither Charterers nor Owners shall be responsible for the consequences of any strikes or lock-outs preventing or delaying the
fulfilment of any obligations under this contract
149
150
151
74
745
75
7-7
78
If there is a strike or lock-out affecting the loading of the cargo,
or any part of it, when vessel is ready to proceed from her last port
or at any time during the voyage to the port or ports of loading or
after her arrival there Captain or Owners may ask Charterers to
declare, that they agree to reckon the laydays as if there were no
152
153
154
155
156
id
strike or lick-out. Unless Charterers have given such declaration in
writing(by telegram if necessary) within 24 hours Owners shall
have the option of cancelling this contract. If part cargo has already
been loaded, Owners must proceed with same, (freight payable on
loaded quantity only) having liberty to complete with other cargo
on the way tor their own account.
If there is a strike or lock-out affecting the discharging of the cargo,
on or after vessel's arrival at or off port of discharge and same has
not been settled within 48 hours, Receivers shall have the option of
keeping vessel waiting until such strike or lock-out is at an end
against paying half demurrage after expiration of the time provided
for discharging, or of ordering the vessel to a safe port where she
can safely discharge without risk of being detained by strike or lockout. Such orders to be given within 48 hours after Captain or Owners
have given notice to Charterers of the strike or lock-out affecting
the discharge. On delivery of the cargo at such port, all conditions
of lis Charter-party and the Sill of Lading shall apply and vessel
shall receive the same freight as if she had discharged at the
original port of destination, except that if the distance of the substituted port exceeds"-100 nautical miles, the freight on the cargo
delivered at the substituted port to be increased in proportion.
16 War Risks ("Voywar 1950")
(1)ln these clauses 'War Risks" shall include any blockade or any
action which is announced as a blockade by any Government or by any
belligerent or by an organised body, sabotage, piracy, and any actual
or threatened war hostilities, warlike operations, civil war, civil commotion, or revolution.
(2)lf any time before the Vessel commences loading, it appears that
performance of the contract will subject the Vessel or her Master and
crew or her cargo to war risks at any stage of adventure , the Owners
shall be entitled by letter or telegram despatched to the Charterers, to
cancel this Charter
(3)The Master shall not be required to load cargo or to continue
loading or to proceed on or to sign Bill(s) of Lading for any adventure
on which or any port at which it appears that the Vessel, her Master
and crew or her cargo will be subject to war risks. In the event of
the exercise by the Master of his right under this Clause after part or
full cargo has been loaded, the Master shall be at liberty either to
discharge such cargo at the loading port or to proceed therewith.
In the latter case the Vessel shall have the liberty to carry other cargo
for Owners' benefit and accordingly to proceed and load or
discharge such other cargo at any other port or ports whatsoever,
backwards or forwards, although in a contrary direction to or out of or
beyond the ordinary route. In the event of the Master electing to
proceed with part cargo under this Clause freight shall in any case
be payable on the quantity delivered,
(4)lf at the time the Master elects to proceed with part or full cargo
under Clause 3, or after the Vessel has left the loading port, or the
last of the loading ports, if more than one, it appears that further
performance of the contract will subject the Vessel, her Master and
crew or her cargo to war risks the cargo shall be discharged, or if
the discharge has been commenced shall be completed, at any safe
port in vicinity of the port of discharge as may be ordered by the
Charterers. If no such orders shall be received from the Charterers
within 48 hours after the Owners have despatched a request by
telegram to the Charterers for the nomination of a substitute discharging port , the Owners shall be at liberty to discharge the cargo at
any safe port which they may, in their discretion, decide on and such
discharge shall be deemed to be due fulfilment of the contract of
affreightment. In the event of cargo being discharged at any such
other port, the Owners shall be entitled to freight as if the discharge
had been effected at the port or ports named in the 8ill(s) of Lading
or to which the Vessel may have been ordered pursuant thereto.
(5) (a)The Vessel shall have liberty to comply with any directions
or recommendations as to loading, departure, arrival, routes, ports
of call, stoppages, destination, zones, waters, discharge, delivery or
in any other wise whatsoever (including any direction or recommendation not to go to the port of destination or to delay proceeding
thereto or to proceed to some other port )give by any Government or
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
by any belligerent or by any organised body engaged in civil war,
hostilities or warlike operations or by any person or body acting or
purporting to act as or with the authority of any Government or
by any belligerent or by any organised body or by any committee or
person having under the terms of the war risks insurance on the
Vessel, the right to give any such directions or recommendations. If
by reason of or in compliance with any such direction or recommendation, anything is done or is not done, such shall not be deemed
a deviation
(b)lf, by reason of or in compliance with any such directions or recommendations, the Vessel does not proceed to the port or ports
named in the Biil(s) of Lading or to which she may have been
ordered pursuant thereto, the Vessel may proceed to any port as
directed or recommended or to any safe port which the Owners in
their discretion may decide on and there discharge the cargo. Such
discharge shall be deemed to be due fulfilment of the contract of
affreightment and the Owners shall be entitled to freight as if
discharge had been effected at the port or ports named in the Bill(s)
of Lading or to which the Vessel may have been ordered pursuant
thereto.
(6) All extra expenses (including insurance costs) involved in discharging cargo at the loading port or in reaching or discharging the cargo
at any port as provided in Clauses 4 and 5 (b) hereof shall be paid
by the Charterers and/or the cargo owners, and the Owners shall have
a lien on the cargo for all moneys due under these Clauses.
17
GENERAL ICE CLAUSE
Port of loading
(a) In the event of the loading port being inaccessible by reason of
Ice when vessel is ready to proceed from her last port or at any
time during the voyage or on vessel's arrival or in case frost sets in
after vessel's arrival, the Captain for fear of being frozen in is at
liberty to leave without cargo, and this Charter shall be null and
void
(b)lf during loading the Captain, for fear of vessel being frozen in,
deems it advisable to leave, he has liberty to do so with what cargo
he has on board and to proceed to any other port or ports with
option of completing cargo for Owners' benefit for any port or ports
including port of discharge. Any part cargo thus loaded under this
Charter to be forwarded to destination at vessel's expense but
against payment of freight, provided that no extra expenses be
thereby caused to the Receivers, freight being paid on quantity
delivered (in proportion if lumpsum), all other conditions as per
Charter.
(c) In case of more than one loading port, and if one or more of
the ports are closed by Ice, the Captain or Owners to be at liberty
either to load the part cargo at the open port and fill up elsewhere
for their own account as under section (b) or to declare the Charter
null and void unless Charterers agree to load full cargo at the open
port.
(d) This Ice Clause not to apply In the Spring.
Port of discharge
(a)Should Ice (except in the Spring)prevent vessel from reaching
port of discharge Receivers shall have the option of keeping vessel
waiting until the re-opening of navigation and paying demurrage, or
of ordering the vessel to a safe and immediately accessible port
where she can safely discharge without risk of detention by ice.
Such orders to be given within 48 hours after Captain or Owners
have given notice to Charterers of the impossibility of reaching port
of destination.
(b)lf during discharging the Captain, for fear of vessel being frozen
in deems it advisable to leave, he has liberty to do so with what
cargo he has on board and to proceed to the nearest accessible
port where she can safely discharge.
(c ) On delivery of the cargo at such port, all conditions of the Bill
of Lading shall apply and vessel shall receive the same freight as
if she had discharged at the original port of destination, except that if
the distance of the substituted port exceeds 100 nautical miles, the
freight on the cargo delivered at the substituted to be increased
in proportion.
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
256
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
Additional clauses to Charter Party "Gencon 76" m/v "……………………."dated'OSFebruary 2002
Owners: ……………………………………………………………, Cyprus Charterers: …………………. Ltd,
Cyprus
CI.18.
The total quantity will be about 4800 mts up to full and complete cargo capacity in Charterers' option but always
up to the permissible draft in the Russian River System.
CI. 19.
First opening and last closing of the hatches to be done by crew, if allowed by local authorities, in vessels time and at
Owners expense. Should the crew not be allowed to open/close the hatches, then same labour to be for Charterers
account.
CI.20.
Vessel to be loaded at the rate of 800 mts per weather working day of 24 consecutive hours whereas time from
1700 hrs on Friday or the day prior a holiday till 0800 hrs on Monday or the day after a holiday not to count even
if used. Vessel to be discharged at the rate of 800 mts per weather working day of 24 consecutive hours whereas
time from 1200 hrs on Thursday or the day prior a holiday till 0800 hrs on Saturday or the day after a holiday not
to count even if used. Laytime to be non-reversible.
CI.21.
Overtime expenses to be for account of the party ordering same. However officers' and crew overtime to be for
Owners' account.
CI.22.
The vessel's holds to be clean, dry and in every respect suitable to load the relevant cargo, at independent
surveyors satisfaction before notice of readiness may be accepted.
Should the vessel not comply with independent surveyors inspection as to cleanliness, the Owners are to clean at
their time and their expense, notwithstanding Charterers' rights under the cancellation clause .
CI.23.
The vessel to be suitable for the type of cargo chartered under this Charter Party. No cargo to be loaded into
deep tanks or in her inaccessible places.
Stevedores, although appointed and paid by the Charterers/ Shippers and/or Receivers are considered to be
servants of the vessel and are to work under the direction and control of the Master, who will be responsible for
proper stowage and seaworthy trim of the vessel.
CI.24.
All stevedore damage to the ship incurred during loading/ discharging to be settled between Owners and
Stevedores. In case Owners are unable to obtain settlement from Stevedores, Charterers to assist to their best
the Owners to recover the cost of damage from Stevedores.
CI.25.
The Charterers/ Shippers/ Receivers shall have liberty to work during excepted periods and Master/ Owners are
to allow such work to be done.
CI.26.
Sufficient cash for ships disbursements to be advanced by the Owners to the Agents at the port of loading and
discharging prior vessel's arrival and in any case prior completion of loading, failing which the Charterers are not
to be responsible for any delays caused thereby .
CI.27.
Tally , if any, to be for account of the party ordering same.
CI. 28.
The vessel to supply free of expense to the Charterers light as on board if required and same to be in good
working order.
CI.29.
Any dues/taxes/charges on vessel to be for Owners' account, same on cargo to be for Charterers' account.
CI.30.
Owners confirm that vessel is guaranteed classed Lloyds 100A1 or equivalent and that this class will be
maintained for the whole duration of the voyage.
1
\(*
Additional Clauses to Charter Party Gencon 76"m/v …………………. dated 05 February 2002
Owners: ……………………………………………. Ltd, Cyprus
Charterers; …………………….. Ltd, Cyprus
The vessel is insured against risk for cargo claims, water pollution and collision by………………….
CL3L
Atmospheric rust is not to be considered as remark for damaged cargo. Any remarks to appear in Mates Receipt
only and Charterers will cover Owners with Charterers' Letter of Indemnity in Owners' P and I wording.
CI.32.
Owners guarantee that the vessel is not intended for break-up upon completion of this voyage. Should, contrary
to above guarantee, the vessel be sold for break-up, before she has completed discharge, and been released by
Receivers of the cargo, then Owners to pay whatsoever insurance penalty might be against Charterers forthwith.
CI.33.
This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and any dispute arising out of
or in connection with this Contract shall be referred to arbitration in London in accordance with the Arbitration
Act 1996 or any statutory modification or reenactment thereof save to the extent necessary to give effect to the
provisions of this Clause.
The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the London Maritime Arbitrators Association (LMAA) Small
Claims Procedure current at the time when the arbitration proceedings are commenced.
CI.34.
This Charter Party shall be kept strictly private and confidential.
CI.35.
The freight is deemed earned upon completion of loading, discountless, non-returnable ship and/ or cargo lost or
not lost.
100% freight less commission only, is to be paid within 3 banking days after signing and/ or releasing Bills of
Lading but in any case before breaking bulk.
In case Charterers request for Bills of Lading marked "Freight Prepaid" same to be kept in Agents' custody until
freight is being confirmed paid to the Owners and only after instruction in writing from the Owners.
CI.36.
Master has the right to insert possible remarks to the cargo in Mates Receipt for which Charterers shall issue
Letter of Indemnity in Owners' favour in accordance with Owners' P and I wording and shall be signed by
Charterers only
CI.37.
A both ends vessel or its agents have the right to tender Notice of Readiness wipon, wibon, wifpon, wccon.
ETA notices to be given to F.H.Bertling GesmBH, Vienna by telex or cable who will pass same Charterers.
Loading Notices required: approximate notice on fixing and definite notices 5/3 days 48/24 hours.
Discharging Notices required: approximate notice on sailing loading port, followed by 10/7/5/3 days and definite
notices 48/24 hours.
CI.38.
Time to shift from lay-by berth, anchorage, roads to loading/ discharging berth not to count even if the vessel is
already on demurrage .
CI.39.
New Jason Clause, Both -to- Blame Collision Clause, P+I Bunker Deviation Clause and General Paramount Clause
are deemed to be fully incorporated and form part of this Charter Party and Bills of Lading issued under this
Charter Party.
CI.40.
Owners confirm and guarantee that vessel is fully complying with all required regulations of the trade and all
certificates/ insurances necessary for safe and proper performance of this voyage are valid/ have been arranged.
CI. 41
At loading and discharging ports the Owners to appoint their shipping agents to serve the vessel
2
Additional Clauses Charter Party "Gencon 76 m/v …………………………."dated OS February 2002
Owners: ……………………………………………………. Ltd, Cyprus
Charterers; …………………………. Ltd, Cyprus
CI. 42
Description of the vessel
M/V ………………………………
BLT 1980, DWT 5100 MTS AT 3.57 M SSWD,
RUSSIAN FLAG
GT/NT 4949/2146
LOA/BEAM/DEPTH 138,40/16.5/8.00 M
2/2 HO/HA
DIMS OF HO:
NR 1. 44.40 X 12.45/13.30 X 8.00
2. 44.40 X 12.45/13.30 X 8.00 FORE PART OF NR 1 HOLD GOES STEEP 19DEG,
STARTING 6 METRES FROM THE FORE
BULKHEAD. CU CAP 9365 CBM
HATCH COVERS PIGGY BACK TYPE
DIMS OF HA NR 1. 44.40 X 13.30
2. 44.40 X 13.30 GEARLESS, BOXSHAPED, STEEL FLOORED, B+E
AFT EQUIPPED WITH A BOWTHRUSTER AND TWIN SCREW CLASSED
MSP ICE 20 BY RUSSIAN RIVER REGISTER OF SHIPPING P+I AND H+M
COVERED BY INGOSTSTRAKH MOSCOW TYPE • DRY CARGO
All details are deemed to be true and correct but no guarantee could be given.
CI.43
Charterers or their representatives have the right to order S.G.S. survey at their time/ cost before starting
loading, and Master has to assist the S.G.S. surveyor. Upon completion of loading S.G.S. should perform draft
survey at Charterers' cost. Master to assist best possible. Figures found by S.G.S. and Master will be inserted as
official weight in each Bill of Lading, but in case the figures are between S.G.S. and Mates Receipts different, the
Owners shall not be responsible for the difference in weight figures.
One draft survey at the beginning and one at the end at load port only.
CI.44
Vessel shall be free of extra insurance. Overage premium if any due to vessel's age to be for Charterers' account.
CI.45
Owners to be responsible: for number of bundles loaded, same to be delivered at discharging port; to sign daily
Mates Receipt and to state number of bundles in Bills of Lading which are to be conclusive evidence of the
quantity of cargo shipped.
See also Clause No 43.
CI.46
Owners to satisfy themselves with port restrictions both ends.
CI.47.
In the case the Charterers fail to load and/ or discharge the vessel within the time stipulated in clause 20 the
Charterers are to pay demurrage at the rate of USD 2100,- per day pro rata at the ports of loading and
discharging. Free dispatch both at the loading and discharging ports. Undisputable demurrage if any is to be paid
by the Charterers within 10 (ten) banking days after receipt of well readable fax or scan copies of NOR, SOF and
Owners' time sheets,
CI.48.
Owners to give regularly to Charterers, via booking channel the vessel's complete schedule including ETA/ ETS for
each calling port, and keep advised about any changes thereto.
3
ANNEX 8
Tri-partite Settlement Agreement
dated 14th June 2002
Amicable Settlement Agreement to Charter Party dated 05
February 2002
Charterers: ………………….., Nicosia, Cyprus
Owners: ………………………………………………….Ltd, Cyprus
Receivers: ………………………….., Dubai, U.A.E,
Istanbul, 14 June 2002
M/v ………………………, which was chartered by ……………………. Cyprus,
hereinafter referred as to Charterers, to carry her cargo of steel products from
Astrakhan to Bandar Anzali and there deliver it to …………………, Dubai,
hereinafter referred as to Receivers, was delayed at the port of discharge and
thus gross demurrage of USD 32038.13 incurred.
In order to secure the payment of the demurrage the Owners exercised through
their agents - Iran Shipping Services lien over the cargo discharged and
commenced Arbitration as per the relative clause of the Carter Party. The
Receivers from their side commenced legal procedure against our agent Iran
Shipping Services for iate delivery of the cargo.
In view of the good cooperation between the Charterers and the Owners and in
order to avoid any possible complications of this matter it was this day agreed
between the Charterers, the Owners and the Receivers that:
-
-
The Charterers shall pay the net amount of USD 26000 (say twenty six
thousand US Dollars only) to the bank account of the Owners with value
date 17 June 2002.
The Owners shall consider the amount paid by the Charterers as stated
hereinabove as full and final settlement of the demurrage due.
The Receivers shall cease any further procedures against Owners' agent in
Iran (Iran Shipping Services) and shall not claim any damages due to the
delay of the cargo.
All other terms, provisions and conditions of the Charter Party dated 05 February
2002 remain unchanged.
For and on behalf of the Charterers:
For and on behalf of the Owners:
For and on behalf of the Receivers: