Charterparty pitfalls and dispute resolution
In the complex world of international commerce and maritime transactions, the negotiation and execution of charterparty agreements often set the stage for potential disputes. The intricacies of these contracts can be labyrinthine, and disputes can arise over whether a binding contract was indeed formed or over the comprehensibility of the terms agreed upon.
In the 6th Annual Baltic ICS Lecture Series webinar, Lawrence Teh and Karina Albers, two seasoned experts in international arbitration and maritime law, explored the key legal principles and practical considerations surrounding charterparty agreements and dispute resolution.
Teh kicked off by reminding brokers and traders of the fundamental legal principles that underpin charterparty agreements. When two parties negotiate a business deal, they can either discuss all the terms of the contract at once or agree to certain terms and leave others to be decided later. This flexibility is particularly relevant in the context of chartering vessels, where crucial terms such as charter hire, loading, destination, and laycan are agreed upon first, with other less pressing or less important terms left for subsequent discussion.
One critical issue in maritime disputes is whether the parties have indeed concluded a binding contract. English and Singaporean law, for instance, emphasise objective conduct over subjective beliefs in determining contract formation. The objective conduct takes into account what is both written and said orally, the industry’s standards, the parties’ familiarity with each other, and their common understanding.
It’s important to note that contracts need not always be reduced to a single written document.
“A contract can exist through the words and conduct exchange between the parties,” Teh said.
KEY PRINCIPLES Teh outlined the key principles governing charterparty agreements and dispute resolution:
1. Comprehensible Terms: The law will not enforce a contract that contains incomprehensible terms or contracts that are incomprehensible as a whole. 2. Unfulfilled Conditions: Contracts subject to unfulfilled conditions, such as the signing of a full written document or the agreement of all terms, will not be enforced. 3. Illegality: Contracts with an illegal principal purpose will not be enforced.
4. Binding Agreements: Subject to these impediments, the law will enforce any agreement that the parties have mutually agreed upon as binding.
5. Reasonable Expectations: Courts aim to give effect to the reasonable expectations of honest business people, underlining the importance of clarity and mutual understanding in negotiations.
“It is therefore important when you’re negotiating a contract to be alive to these principles,” Teh said. “It may make the difference between winning or losing a court case or an arbitration.”
Albers highlighted a critical distinction between US and UK law regarding contract formation. Under US law, if parties agree without any conditions or subjects, a contract is considered formed. English law, to a large extent, has followed suit in recent times. When both parties are clear on the terms, have no subjects, and have adequately recapped their discussions, it is likely that the law will view them as having concluded a binding contract.
ROLE OF CLARITY AND FAMILIARITY Teh emphasised the importance of clarity and familiarity with industry- specific terminology. While brokers may use their own language for efficiency, it can lead to disputes. “I recall one arbitration which came down to one email, one acronym, which, if I recall
100 | ISSUE 106 | DEC 2023 | THE REPORT
correctly, was AG WWP,” Teh said. “Fortunately, that was immediately recognised by the arbitrator. So that underscores the point, that it’s important to identify someone who’s familiar with the terminology.”
Also, the law does not require contracts to be written or signed; it seeks to establish whether the parties intended to be bound by their discussions and agreements. Albers said: “So be mindful even if the charter party is not signed – and it can be an electronic signature or no signature – if the parties have acted upon it, they’ve conducted the terms of the contract and then you do have a binding contract.”
Additionally, contrary to the popular notion that silence can never constitute acceptance, in the right circumstances, silence can indeed be a form of contractual consent. This is particularly relevant in the context of fixtures and operations.
“In the right circumstances. silence can be as deafening as active contractual consent,” Teh said.
Albers, meanwhile, underscored that negotiations conducted on social media platforms or via electronic communication can form a binding contract.
Both presenters stressed the importance of seeking resolution, whether through settlement or expert evaluation, when disputes arise. Settlement is often the most efficient and cost-effective way to resolve disputes, and legal professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating this process. Albers noted the use of Early Neutral Evaluation as an alternative to full arbitration.
“It’s all about getting people inclined towards settlement,” Teh said. “There’s no point in ordering people to mediate or forcing people to enter the settlement negotiations if they are not inclined to find a solution. The question is how you’re going to make two parties inclined to explore and find a solution. That’s the trick.”
Source: Baltic Exchange
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144
