Displaying results 271 to 280 out of 578
27/03/2014
At the outset of negotiations the principal instructed his broker that they were prepared to pay a daily rate plus a lumpsum for redelivery in the Far East. The principal and the broker were communicating on an electronic messenger system while the broker was having exchanges with the other party via email.
10/10/2013
A ship agent overlooked the filing of some customs documentation for two containers of bananas due to be loaded on a ship in the Caribbean. Due to this error, the two containers remained in port.
The shipment of six containers of castor oil, worth USD 270,000, was arranged by a ship agent member of ITIC. The containers were to be transported from India to Antwerp. Unfortunately, the Belgian agent released the cargo to the consignee against a bill of lading that appeared genuine at first glance – but was in fact a clever forgery.
A ship agent received instructions from a shipper to book eight containers of cargo from Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and issued two bills of lading for the booking.
In late September, an agent for a major shipping line accepted a booking of industrial solvent. On 10 October the vessel arrived at the loadport but did not complete cargo operations until five days later.
As you will see from the examples given in the following paragraphs a mistake in a bill of lading can have wide ranging consequences and produce a variety of claims. The main source of ship agency claims seen by ITIC are those which involve bills of lading.
A shipbroker fixed an extension of a charter in direct continuation. However, the broker working the account had forgotten to include the charterer’s “subject to 24 hours reconfirmation” in the negotiation.
After the conclusion of a voyage, various owner’s claims were submitted by the shipbroker to the charterers within the time allowed (including the costs of shifting, cleaning and demurrage). However the owners separately sent the shipbroker a claim for loss of hire. This was for an amount of USD 31,500 but this was not sent to the charterers within the 90 days. The charterparty was subject to US law and the time bar clause was wide enough to cover all “charges and claims”.
A ship was fixed for a trip timecharter for two voyages, with an option for a third. In accordance with the recap the option was to be declared by the charterers on completion of loading on the second voyage. The fixture had been negotiated via brokers in two different offices of the same broking company.
The loading of a ship was delayed, as a result of which the owners had a claim against the charterers under the terms of the charterparty for demurrage of around EUR 70,000.