This case discusses whether the vessel was off-hire from 14:11 hrs on December 17, 2010 until 06:00 hrs on December 18, 2010. The charterers instructed the master to proceed to Crete without bunkering in Malta first, which the master agreed to verbally. However, upon arriving in Crete, the master requested to bunker there as bunkers were not available and it was unsafe to proceed without booking bunkers first, especially in winter. The owners argue the master saved responsibility by not proceeding without bunkers. The charterers argue the master approved the plan initially without protest about bunker quantities.

1. CASE #1:

3. OWNER TIME CHARTER (BALTIME 1939) TIME CHARTERERS VOYAGE CHARTER VOYAGE CHARTERERS BILL OF LADING CARGO INTEREST

4. TIME CHARTERERS OWNER S CLEAN B/L? YES, BUT VS LOI SURVEY SHIP TO SAIL BEFORE 15/11 DRAFT B/L? NO REPLY 15/11 NO WAY FOR CLEAN B/L AS REMARKS OF SURVEYOR OFF-HIRE NOTICE 16/11 CLEAN B/L ISSUED 17/11 SHIP SAILS TWO DAYS OFF-HIRE? OR MAYBE NOT? 50 000 $ AT STAKE

6. CHARTERERS’ POSITION: “ Master should have followed Charterers’ instructions (clause 9 and clause 33) and, although clause 26 provides for what can and what can’t be deducted from hire, clause 27 provides that „Vessel is off hire when not ready to sail and follow Charterers’ instructions”.” “ By advising to issue clean bill of lading in exchange of LOI, by providing Charterers with Owners proforma LOI, by finally issuing clean bill of lading in exchange of LOI, Owners have expressly or impliedly confirmed that they were discussing and then followed what they now call Charterers’ illegitimate orders and by doing so Owners expressly or impliedly contested to, ratified and endorsed the legality of Charterers’ orders. Therefore Charterers’ position re deduction of hire is justified.” “ Charterers believe that the delay could have been avoided would there be a clear and unchangeable position of Owners.”

7. THERE WAS SOME MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARTIES AND BOTH PARTIES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT TO SOME DEGREE. SUGGESTION: TO SPLIT THE DEDUCTION 50/50.

8. CASE #2:

9. QUESTION: Whether the vessel was off-hire from 14.11 hrs December 17, 2010 till 06.00 hrs December 18, 2010?

10. TIME CHARTERERS MASTER OWNER (RIC) YES PROCEED TO CRETE (RIC) YES 17/11 SHIP SAILS TO CRETE 1 8 /11 RETURN TO MALTA YES BUNKERING AT MALTA SHIP RETURS TO MALTA BUNKERING AT CRETE OFF-HIRE? 50.000 $ AT STAKE OR MAYBE NOT? YES

11. Owner’s position: „ Master soon as received instructions from your side to sail without bunkering asked us for bunker availability at Souda port (Crete) and we informed Master that at Souda port (Crete) there was no bunker available. After that Master informed you that it was not safe to proceed without having booked bunker in Souda port (Crete), especially in winter. Also we would like to point out that Master saved Charterers’ responsibility for many many huge amount, so there is no fault from Owners’ side.”

12. Charterers’s position: „ Decision to proceed to port of discharge without bunkering at Malta was made in consideration with Master, who has not given any protest on critical quantity of bunker as per ISM regulations upon moment of making such decision, and verbally (by phone) agreed to proceed to Crete. Owners were in copy of every correspondence. In any case Charterers were not granted to make any orders to Master/Owners with regard to ISM/ISPS regulations.” „ We base our claim on the fact that Master had approved procedure to proceed further, sailed to Crete without waiting for weather improvement and then later on, after several hours Master/Owners had changed their mind and requested bunkering. Charterers had lost time/bunker while going back to Malta.”

13. Thank You!