A shipbroker has been sued after failing to identify conflicting laycan clauses in a voyage charterparty.
The confusion led to a complex dispute and a $100,000 claim, which UK insurer ITIC has paid.
ITIC said the case illustrated the importance of meticulous contract drafting and attention to detail in maritime agreements.
It said the unnamed broker was instructed by the charterer and shipowner to include their preferred loading and cancellation clauses in the charter.
“Unfortunately, the broker inserted both clauses into the recap without realising they were contradictory. Neither party noticed the conflict, and the fixture was concluded containing both clauses,” it said.
The ship later faced delays at the discharge port from its previous voyage, leading the owner to expect the dates to be missed.
The owner then invoked its laycan clause and proposed a new one, which the charterer had a specified time to reject, ITIC added.
The charterer did not reject the new laycan within the allotted time, which the shipowner interpreted as acceptance.
“However, upon recognising the delay, the charterer invoked their own laycan clause, allowing them to cancel the charterparty outright. They promptly secured another ship and proceeded with their operations,” the insurer said.
The owner was left without a cargo and sought alternative employment.
Bad position
But the best option available positioned the vessel unfavourably for future cargoes, resulting in alleged financial losses.
The owner filed a claim for $400,000, later reduced to $100,000 in negotiations.
Mark Brattman, claims director at ITIC, said: “This case underscores the critical need for meticulous attention to contract detail in maritime agreements.
“Overlooking conflicting laycan clauses led to significant financial consequences for both parties, highlighting the role of precise drafting and thorough review in avoiding costly disputes.”
