A shipbroker was arranging a fixture involving the loading of a variety of parcels. Various permutations of parcels and holds were discussed during the negotiations.
Shipbrokers involved in negotiating period business received a revised description from the owners. The difference was that the original description described the ship as doing “abt 14 knots on abt 32 mt IFO” while the revision added “+ AE 2.6 mt”.
Shipbrokers had arranged a voyage charter. They noted that the ship appeared to be delayed and would not make the original laydays. After discussing the options the broker understood that both the owners and charterers agreed to cancel the fixture.
A ship broker received a freight invoice via email from owners for US$ 120,000. The bank account detailed in the invoice was the same account as that which had previously been used by owners with the same charterer. Several hours later a further e-mail was received, apparently, from the owner to advise of a change to the bank account details on the invoice. The email stated that the originally detailed bank account was “no longer available to receive payment due to an internal audit that was beginning tomorrow”.
A charterparty was arranged by a ship broker which included a clause stating that “charterers to declare 15 day laycan latest 30 days prior to the opening day of the first layday.”
Ship brokers fixed a charter with the common laycan provision that if it appears to charterers that the ship’s arrival at the loading port will be delayed charterers may require owners to say when they expect the ship to be ready to load.
Ship brokers negotiated the terms of a contract of affreightment (“COA”) between charterers and ship owners. The ship brokers received all of their instructions from an agent that purported to act for the charterers. The COA provided for a minimum of 18 shipments to take place over a 12 month period.
Sale and purchase brokers concluded an MOA. Shortly afterwards a mooring line was caught in the ship’s propeller and the ship could not make the laycan in the MOA. The ship was dry docked for repairs. Buyers and...
Ship brokers were owed commission by the owners of a ship which regularly called at Cape Town. The owners had ignored requests for payment from both the brokers and ITIC. A lawyer in South Africa was instructed to threaten arrest and the brokers received part payment of the outstanding amount.
The operations department of a London broker received a message from an owner in relation to a voyage with offshore discharge in an area with a high risk of piracy. Attached to the message was a freight invoice and another one for the cost of armed guards. This cost was payable by the charterer under the terms of the charterparty.