Good Weather Agreement

The parties removed the NYPE 19-20 lines (“capable of charging at full load in good weather at a speed of …¬†“The owner`s location” was that the good weather was limited to conditions where the “global” sea and threshold height did not exceed 1.25 m. Skuld stated that the most effective charter qualification holders could include the words “unsecured.” It was found that the allegation that the vessel`s performance data had been transmitted “without warranty” resulted in the numbers no longer being a guarantee and that the charterer could no longer rely on it. The only legal obligation imposed on the owners was that the figures shown be provided in good faith at the time the vessel was set (The Lipa [2001]). Faith does not even need to be reasonable (The Lendoudis Evangelos No.2 [1997]), so that in practice it would be very difficult to demonstrate bad faith. The award was referred to the arbitrator to determine whether the periods of good weather in the first stage were a sufficient sample to find a violation of the performance guarantee. Charterers router reported a time loss of 50.89 hours (based on a 12.26 kt “good time” net speed of 0.2 kt of help) and 71 mt mt IFO overconsumption, and charterer deducted from the rental based on these figures. This decision clarifies this point and prevents the usual “performance reporting fight” and is the one that referees must follow. In the absence of a reference to “good weather days” in a charter party, all periods of good weather can be taken into account. The only caveat is that a single arbitrator or tribunal has discretion over evidence. The charterers brought an allegation of speed and consumption and stated that the vessel could not meet its performance guarantees in good weather. The owners` router reported a time loss of 23.98 hours (based on a speed of 12.68 kt “good time” without overconsumption, and the owners claimed that the $63,435.10 difference between their added underperformance (based on their router`s ratio) and the charter deduction. The authors of this article have recently been involved in arbitration proceedings relating to the point raised at Polaris.

The owners say that anything less than 24 hours of uninterrupted “beautiful weather” is not enough to accurately assess a ship`s true performance. Not surprisingly, charterers have the opposite view. Charterers prepare weather road company reports showing that continuous 12-hour periods are sufficient to assess performance. Owners make reports that require 24-hour uninterrupted periods. “The good weather conditions are for maximum beaufort speeds 4 (11-16 knots) and a significant overall cumulative swell height (sea and wave wave) limited to the limits of the state of the Sea De Douglas 3 (0.5-1.25 m), with no adverse currents and no swell influence.” The Tribunal noted, however, that the arbitrator was free to decide whether a given period of good time constituted a large enough sample to be considered. Skuld stated that, although there is no need for a “good weather day” in a continuous 24-hour period (The Ocean Virgo [2015]), it was likely that routes of less than 12 uninterrupted hours would not be considered representative. A court would also require a complainant to show a proportion of good weather large enough to be representative of the entire trip. But again, the courts have not yet been subject to strict and rapid rules. For a good weather period to be allowed, she had to run for 24 hours from 12 p.m. to 12 p.m.; charterers relying on the reports of a weather routing company to be behauptete violation of performance warrants at good weather and claimed damages of US `128,388.86.