Demurrage Defense A Number Of Issues

There will be delay if the charterer occupies the additional days for loading and discharging according to the charterparty. The compensations for this additional delay are called demurrage. So many disputes have been put into the court because of the contrary points of ideas between the shipowners and the charterers to this payment. After studying the latest 8 years (1996~2003) cases (mainly from Lloyd's Rep), this thesis discusses the main arguments from the different sides of the defense by charterers and the main judgments according to the different laws. The author hopes this thesis will be helpful for the relevant businessmen and lawmen.Chapter one, defense against the validity of the NOR (notice of readiness) tendered. Firstly, according to the "Mexico I", the author analyzes the meaning of the readiness; Secondly, by studying the "Agamemnon", the author discussed the importance of the "arrived ship" to the validity of NOR; Thirdly, after studying the "Petr Schmidt", the author introduces the new development in English Law in this area and points out that the NOR though tendered outside the specified hours is still valid; Fourthly, by contrasting the two similar cases: the "Mass Glory" and the "Happy Day", the author analyzes the latest progress in this area. The laytime will start to count from the commencement of the loading and discharge. By considering the Chinese contract law, the author finds the same rule.Chapter two, defense against the fault of the shipowner. Once occurs the delay, the charterers will try to find the shipowner's fault to defend the claim, because the charterers can be excused if the delay is caused by the wrongful conduct of shipowners, or by someone for whom he is responsible. By studying the following cases: Budgett & Co v. Binnington & Co, Houlder v. Weir, The "Maria G ", The "Altus ", The "Fontevivo ", The "Sinoe ", The "Union Amsterdam ", the author concludes that 1) If the shipowner, by any act of his, has prevented the loading or discharge, then it can be proved primary fault unless it is a thing necessary to be down or is beyond his control or comply with the terminal's requirment.2) The burden of proof for justifying his action lies on toe shipowner.3) the exceptionclause should be clear and independent.Chapter three, the author discusses the Stolt Tankers v. Landmark Chemicals, the author suggests a different judgment to the judge's that the charterers shall argue the defense against the actual damage.Chapter four, the author discusses the liabilities for paying the demurrage between the different parties (charterers, shippers, receivers and the B/L holders) under the different sales contracts (FOB and CIF).In the last chapter, the author focuses in the time bar. So many cases ([1997] The "Voltaz", [1997]The "Stolt Sydness", [1999] Mira Oil v. Bocimar [2000] The "Yellow Star" ) were put into court for time bar. After studying and contrasting with the Chinese law and English law, I find the differences in the time-bar clauses.