In the absence of a clause giving a party the right to direct the vessel to wait for orders, they nonetheless order the vessel to wait mid-voyage and agree to the delay being on demurrage rate then should the claim be forwarded as a demurrage claim or detention claim? The question came up in The Seagrace [2018], where such a dispute arose in the context of sales contract between charterers (also the sellers) and the buyers. The distinction was crucial as the demurrage claim would have been time barred.
Facts of this case were as follows - buyers requested the charterers that the vessel wait in the Mediterranean because of congestion at discharge port, and NOR was to be tendered at this place. Also, NOR was to include bunkers remaining onboard. The charterers and Master agreed to this variation, which resulted in loss of time and additional bunkers being consumed. Charterers having paid the owners for this, were not looking for compensation from the buyers, and had advanced their claim as detention.
Court was also of the view that there was an implied contract for 'delay by agreement'. Also, request of buyers for Master to record the bunkers led to an additional implied term that buyers would pay for bunkers consumed as a result of the vessel having to wait at the waiting area.
Comments