Search

10/03/2015

Commission collection in court

A ship broker had entered into an exclusive commission agreement with a ship owner, which provided for commission of 5% to be paid to the broker on the sale of any of their fleet of vessels even if sold through another broker. The broker heard that two of the owner’s ships had been sold through another broker for EUR 30,300,000 each. The ship owners refused to pay the ship broker’s commission of EUR 303,000. Lawyers were appointed and the commission claim was heard before the First Instance Court in January 2013. The court found for the ship broker and awarded the commission of EUR 303,000 plus interest and costs.

10/03/2015

Boom and bust

A liner agent booked a container of calcium hypochlorite to be moved from a port in the Middle East to Europe. Calcium hypochlorite is a dangerous cargo, with an IMO classification of 5.1. The shipping line had sent clear instructions to the agent prohibiting the loading of this cargo, along with a number of other dangerous cargoes. The agent appeared to have overlooked this instruction.

10/03/2015

Weight watching

A firm of agents was asked to book a tractor for shipment from Europe to the Middle East. They quoted a rate based on the weight and realised after the booking was confirmed that they should have quoted a rate based on the cubic meters of the vehicle. The difference was a freight amount of US$12,500. The agents negotiated with the shipping line, who agreed to reduce the amount they required by US$5,000. ITIC paid the remaining amount.

Architect’s oversight

A naval architect entered into a contract with a shipyard to design the structure and access arrangements for new lifeboats and their davits to be fitted to a specific vessel.

10/03/2015

Performance problems

Operators of a passenger and ro-ro ferry service appointed a naval architect to design a 45m landing craft ferry. The design was to be based on that of an existing vessel operated by the company.

10/03/2015

Crane costs confusion

A ship agent was contacted by charterers. The charterers asked the agent to obtain a quote from a local port on how much it would cost to discharge two parcels weighing 70mt using the shore crane. The agent contacted their usual sub-agent in the port, by telephone, and were given an estimate of US$2,750 per shift, so a total of US$5,500. This estimate was passed by the agent to the charterer, and on this basis the cargo was fixed.

10/03/2015

Safety Management System (“SMS”) failure

An inspector of CARB - California Air Resources Board (the clean air agency of the state of California) – boarded a ship in July 2011 managed by an ITIC Member at the Los Angeles Terminal.

18/09/2014

Timing can be everything

A recent case in which ITIC supported a ship agent Member in pursuing a claim in the New Zealand High Court shows that timing can be everything when it comes to pursuing a claim against a ship owned by a company in financial difficulty.

18/09/2014

Confidentiality Agreements – an ITIC e-learning seminar

ITIC is increasingly asked to comment on confidentiality agreements, sometimes known as nondisclosure agreements.

18/09/2014

SMS

Charterers who had entered a COA asked the shipbroker if they could increase the volume of cargo which had already been booked. The broker, who was working from home, contacted the owner via SMS to ask if there was additional space available on the ship, as charterers might want to increase the volume depending on how much space was available.