Commercial Court rules on the validity of a notice of readinesss tendered when the berth was both occupied and unreachable due to tidal conditions

17 Авг

Истец (Продавец) заключил договор с Ответчиком (Покупателем) на условиях СИФ, в котором предусматривалось, что если номинированный причал будет занят, то судно может подать нотис о готовности в месте обычного ожидания, будучи у причала или нет. Когда судно прибыло, причал был занят другим судном, но погодные условия были такими, что судно не могло подойти к причалу в любом случае. Капитан судна подал нотис о готовности. Суд признал это правильным, поскольку посчитал, что ключевое отношение состоит в том, что Покупатель не обеспечил свободный причал

Suek AG v Glencore International AG (The “Hang Ta”) [2011] EWHC 1361 (Comm)

The Claimant Seller entered into a contract of sale with the Defendant Buyer on a CIF basis.

Clause 7.13 of the contract provided that if the nominated berth was occupied on arrival, the
vessel could tender notice of readiness at the usual waiting place, whether in berth or not.
When the vessel arrived at the discharge port, the nominated berth was occupied by another
vessel. Further, the weather conditions were such that the vessel would not have been able to
reach the berth in any event. The Master gave notice of readiness in accordance with clause
7.13, and the Claimant subsequently brought a claim to determine the construction of that
clause in relation to laytime and demurrage. The issue for the court to consider was whether
the clause should be interpreted as leaving the responsibility for delay with the Buyer, who
did not have the berth available, or with the Seller, whose vessel could not access the berth.
The Defendant submitted that clause 7.13 only operated if the only cause of the delay was
the unavailability of the berth. If there was a weather problem, then the vessel would have to
wait until the conditions cleared, and only if the berth was unavailable at that point could the
Master give notice of readiness.
The Court found in favour of the Claimant. There was no implicit assumption in the clause
that the Seller would bear the heavier responsibility for ensuring the vessel’s arrival at the
berth. Further, it was incorrect to interpret the clause as interfering with an overriding or
otherwise primary obligation of the Seller.
It was true that there might be some inconvenience to the Buyer if notice of readiness was
given at a time when both causes were operational at the time of the vessel’s arrival, and the
berth became available before the weather conditions lifted. However, it was for the Buyer to
provide a berth and if one was available when the vessel arrived at the port then, irrespective
of the weather or tidal conditions, the Buyer would be protected and service of notice of
readiness would be prevented.
In this case, the Buyer’s argument would require a rewriting of clause 7.13 so that the
exception should only apply if the unavailability of a berth were the only reason why the
vessel could not access it. There was no need for such rewriting. Notwithstanding the
presence of tidal conditions which also prevented access to the berth, the unavailability of
the berth entitled the Master to tender notice of readiness. As such, the notice of readiness
had been validly tendered.
Источник: REEDSMITH
SHIPPING GROUP MONTHLY BULLETIN. –  2011. – JULY. – P. 15.

Добавить комментарий

Ваш адрес email не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *