Charter Parties

The following are digests and case links to Circuit Court Admiralty Cases that
have as an issue charter parties:
Federal Marine Terminals v. Worcester Peat Co.
First Circuit Court of Appeals
August 27, 2001
Charter Parties/Demurrage: Since courts have been reluctant to impose
demurrage liability on a party that is neither a signatory, successor nor
possessor of a document that expressly or by incorporation refers to
demurrage, the loading stevedore who was not in privity will not be liable
for demurrage that the shipper was required to pay the vessel due to the
delays in loading the cargo of peat moss. Carriage of Goods: The loading
stevedore is further not liable for the loss of any peat moss since the shipper
failed to provide any reliable evidence of how much peat moss was lost
during loading and failed to establish that the amount lost was beyond what
was anticipated for this type of cargo.

Louis Dreyfus v. Blystad Shipping & Trading Inc.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals
June 7, 2001
Arbitration/Charter Parties: The charter's New York arbitration clause,
which provided that any "dispute arising from the making, performance or
termination of this Charter Party" be arbitrated, was a broad arbitration
clause. Thus, by implicating the rights of Owner and the duties of Charterer
under the charter party, Owner's claims under collateral letters of indemnity
given by Charterer in return for discharging cargo without presentation of
the bills of lading were within the scope of the broad arbitration clause and
were subject to New York arbitration.

U.S. Titan Inc. v. Guangzhou Zhen Hua Shipping

Second Circuit Court of Appeals
February 15, 2001

Arbitration/Charter Parties: The district court correctly held that the

parties did not enter into an "ad hoc" agreement to arbitrate whether they
had formed a charter party, but that they had formed a charter party that
included an arbitration clause requiring London arbitration. Foreign
Sovereign Immunity: Although defendant vessel owner was a Chinese stateowned company, it was not immune from petitioner's action to compel
arbitration in London in view of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's
arbitration exception.

Bank One Louisiana v. M/V Mr Dean

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
June 10, 2002
Maritime Liens/Charter Parties: A maritime lien for breach of a charter
attaches when the owner places the vessel at the charterer's disposal and
remains inchoate until perfected by a breach or discharged by the
undisturbed end of the charter. Thus the charterer's maritime lien for
breach of the charter had priority over the bank's preferred ship mortgage
since the the vessel was placed at the charterer's disposal before the
mortgage was recorded, although the owner's breach of the charter
occurred after the mortgage was recorded.

Dahlen v. Gulf Crews, Inc.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
February 4, 2002
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Charter Parties: The standard of care
owed a longshore worker by a vessel owner as articulated
in Scindia andHowlett does not explicitly apply to time charterers. But, as
no other case articulating the duty owed by a time charterer in such a
situation could be found, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
issuing a jury instruction that applied Scindia to the time
charterer. Indemnity: The vessel owner did not owe the time charterer an
indemnity under the charter's indemnity and insurance clause since the
injury to Plaintiff did not arise out of or relate to the performance of the
vessel during the charter.Admiralty Jurisdiction/Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act ("OCSLA"): The district court erred in applying the Admiralty
Extension Act, 46 U.S.C. 740, and maritime law since Plaintiff's alleged

injury was not caused by the defective appurtenance of a ship on navigable

waters and, furthermore, the OCSLA specifically regards the artificial islands
on the OCS as areas where state law should apply unless there is a conflict
with federal law.

Canal Barge Co. v. Torco Oil Co.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
July 20, 2000
Charter Parties: Charterer and cargo supplier held jointly and severally
liable to barge owner for failure to pay for the clean-up costs arising from
loading a cargo of spent lube oil that left a four inch residue of heavy, tarlike slug. Maritime Torts: The liability of the cargo supplier to the barge
owner was not based on contract, but was based on the negligent loading of
shore tank bottom residue into the barge. Demurrage/Loss of Use:Charterer
and cargo supplier were jointly and severally liable for 76 days of demurrage
at the charter party rate of $480 per day due to the loss of use of the barge
during clean-up operations.

Armit v. Eleni Intl Shipping

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
January 21, 2000
Charter Parties: The agent of the vessel's time charterer had no actual or
apparent authority to bind the vessel's owner or operator/manager to a dock
tariff.

Arkansas State Highways Comm. v. Arkansas River Co.

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 16, 2001
Seaworthiness/Casualties/Charter Parties: Because the United States Army
Corps of Engineers ("Corps"), the owner of the barge, tendered the barge to
the tug's captain with a boom that was unobviously raised such that it could
not pass safely under a Mississippi River bridge, the barge was unseaworthy
on delivery and the Corps was 100% liable for the resulting damages.

Rodriquez v. Bowhead Transportation Co.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
October 26, 2001
Longshore & Harbor Workers' Act/Charter Parties: The time charterer of
the vessel did not violate any of the Scindia duties owed by a vessel to a
longshore worker and thus was not liable for the injuries suffered by the
injured worker. Further, the terminal services agreement between the time
charterer and the stevedore employer plainly did not obligate the time
charterer to supervise the manner in which the stevedore's employees
loaded the cargo.

NATCO Ltd. v. Moran Towing

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals
September 28, 2001
Indemnity/Charter Parties: The towage contract's indemnity provision
provided that the tug owner would be held harmless from "any and all loss,
damage or liability", which allowed the indemnitee tug owner to recover its
attorneys fees from the indemnitor cargo owner, including both defense fees
and fees expended in pursuing a counter-claim against a third party.