Since it replaced its predecessor the Supplytime 89 has become the most widely used standard form contract in the offshore industry. However, despite its widespread use the form has not been free of criticism, and its Clause 26 Early Termination mechanism, particularly, has lead to considerable litigation. These notes underline that the majority of changes are linguistic - for the purpose of improving clarity and avoiding disputes. Of the latest iteration's amendments to the 89 Form, two key provisions which merit close examination are the "Liabilities and Indemnities" provision, better known as the "knock-for-knock" clause, and the Early Termination Clause already mentioned. Further, the liabilities falling on entered vessels as a result of waivers of rights of recourse, such as those that necessarily form part of any knock-for-knock provision, should only be poolable if the purported knock-for-knock provision is balanced, or in other words, a genuine knock-for-knock provision.

Author:Kajishakar Moogull
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):27 November 2009
PDF File Size:15.9 Mb
ePub File Size:12.86 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Please contact customerservices lexology. Owners submitted that the clause did not contain any express or implied requirement for notice to be given before they were entitled to exercise their right of suspension.

There was no requirement for an advance notice. The starting point was the recent decision of The Rainy Sky , which reiterated the principle that if a contract uses clear and unambiguous language, the court must apply it.

Mrs Justice Gloster therefore looked closely at the express language of part [4] of clause 10 e. She found that there was nothing requiring the giving of notice or any grace period. The charterparty contained numerous clauses dealing with the giving of notices, but part [4] contained no such provision. The judge drew a direct comparison with clause 11 a of the NYPE form, which clearly links the right of suspension to the grace period contained in the anti-technicality notice.

This case again reiterates the point, made in The Rainy Sky , that the court will first and foremost consider the express working of a clause in interpreting that clause.

An argument of commerciality will not necessarily suffice to displace this. These findings emphasis the fact that charterparty clauses must be tightly drafted. Parties must never assume that a clause will give them a right or impose an obligation: those rights and obligations must be expressed in terms. The full judgment text, which contains detailed commentary on the inter-relationship between the different parts of clause 10 e , is available on Bailii.

If you would like to learn how Lexology can drive your content marketing strategy forward, please email enquiries lexology. The service succeeds in reducing that torrent to manageable gulps of high value analyses addressing topics of immediacy.

Back Forward. Share Facebook Twitter Linked In. Follow Please login to follow content. Register now for your free, tailored, daily legal newsfeed service. United Kingdom December 7 Clause 10 e provided, in part, as follows: [2] If payment is not received by Owners within 5 banking days following the due date Owners are entitled to charge interest … from and including the due date until payment is received.

Comment This case again reiterates the point, made in The Rainy Sky , that the court will first and foremost consider the express working of a clause in interpreting that clause. Looking for a lawyer? Use our powerful AI search functionality to accurately identify the right lawyer with the relevant experience and expertise to solve your specific legal issues.

Try Instruct Counsel. Anchors aweigh?


Supplytime 05: BIMCO Finalises Its Revision of Supplytime 89

June 09, Collision between a dumb barge which was towed by a tug both owned by Owner and a navigational beacon belonging to the Port Authority. The beacon was damaged beyond repair. Tug was time chartered under Bimco Supplytime Owner contended that the Charterer was obliged to indemnify it against the Port Authority's claim. The Charterer disputed this.




Related Articles