The owner`s arguments, if accepted, could have led to many non-commercial situations. For example, a shipper/sub-charter was unable to respond to a request to charter in time to pay for freight on an account other than the one listed in the travel charter, as this could constitute a breach of its bill of lading contract with the owner. If the owner`s arguments were correct in this case, a shipper who paid the right cargo to the good portion, but on another account, at the request of the charter on time, could end up being forced to pay the freight back to the owner. The English High Court was asked to decide whether the owner had the right to demand payment of the cargo by the shipper after the bill of lading. In particular, if the amounts that the sub-chartering deducted from the payment of freight under the two agreements constituted a non-compliance with the freight after the bill of lading. To the extent that these deductions were made, the freight was not paid as part of the freight transfer and the shipper must pay these sums to the owner, even though they have already been paid by his related company (the sub-charter) in accordance with the agreement with the charterer. Chartering is an activity within the marine industry in which a shipowner leases the use of his vessel to a charterer. The contract between the parties is referred to as the “charter party” (the “charter party” or the French “sharing document”). The three main types of charters are: chartering, travel chartering, and on-time chartering. The charterer`s liability insurance coverage coverage may vary depending on the type of charter and the additional inclusions or exclusions agreed before the purchase of the insurance. On behalf of the owner, it had been argued that these changes to the ancillary costs to the terms of payment for the freight of the travel charter had to be approved by the owner, as they affected the owner`s rights under the lading contract.
This argument was rejected on the basis that, in accordance with the provisions of the time charter, the owner had granted the charterer the freedom to set the amount of the freight bill and the manner in which it was paid and that there was no reason why the corresponding agreements, although different from those originally intended, should not fall within the scope of the delegated authority. The Court of Appeal`s decision in this case corresponds to the economic reality of shipping contracts and supports the need for flexibility. It recognizes that, in the world of shipping, there are often situations where freight payment agreements are concluded in one way or another that differs from the terms originally agreed. It would not reflect the commercial reality of saying that such changes must always be approved by the owner. In some cases, a charterer may own cargo and use a boat broker to find a ship to deliver the load at a certain price, called freight rate. Freight rates can be expressed on a specific link (for example. B for iron ore between Brazil and China), in world points (for oil tankers) or, alternatively, on a total amount, normally in U.S. dollars, per day for the agreed duration of the charter.
The rear of this medal is when a charter of the ship or the owner of a cargo carried on board finds that he may be required to pay more than expected for the use of the ship and the transport of the cargo.