Frustration caused by arrest of vessel – charterers not liable for losses suffered by owners resulting from such frustration.
The Facts
Discharge of the vessel, carrying a cargo of maize to Tripoli, was delayed for some two months by congestion. Discharge commenced only after the expiry of laytime.
Soon after discharge began, it was stopped because some wet damage to the cargo was discovered which led to receivers refusing to take delivery.
Receivers arrested the vessel and thereafter obtained a judgment against owners for the value of the cargo.
Charterers who had been paid for the cargo took no steps (if any were possible) to assist owners.
After the arrest, and before final judgment, the authorities imposed a ban on the further discharge of the cargo on grounds of contamination.
Some four months after judgment had been obtained the matter was settled by third party intervention. In return for payment by owners, the third party supplied a fresh cargo of maize to receivers; the vessel was released and proceeded to Singapore where the original maize cargo was discharged and delivered to or to the order of the third party.
In addition to demurrage, owners sought to recover from the charterers the sum paid to the third party to effect the release of the vessel.
Findings This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please login. New users may register below.