Interpretation

The charter clause requiring the ship to give NOR “within office hours” applied only to an NOR given in berth and not to

WIPON.

SMA 4062

_______________________

The Panel concurs with Owners' statement that Charterers' insistence on the Statement of Facts elevates form over substance. The purpose of this Demurrage Clause is to require Owners to provide support for their invoice. Their inclusion of the reports and logs mentioned earlier are considered by the Panel to place them in substantial compliance with that intent. Also, the imprecise wording of this clause, drafted by Charterers, permits an interpretation favorable to Owners.

SMA 1671

_______________________

Where one rider clause excluded from laytime berthing delays beyond charterer's control, and another rider clause provided that weather-induced berthing delays would count as half-laytime, the intention of the parties was to exclude all uncontrollable delays in berthing except for weather delays, and to count weather delays as half-time

SMA 2597

_______________________

The Owners’ calculations record the vessel arrived at 2100 hrs on 19th June and tendered NOR at that time. The document computes laytime starting at 14.00 hrs the next day, which does not appear right. Paragraph 0 in the fixture note provided, somewhat confusingly, that: "AT LOAD PORT(S) NOR TO BE SERVED........DURING OFFICE HOURS (0900 HRS TO 1730 HRS) FM MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND BTEN (between?) 0900 HRS TO 1200 HRS ON SAT TO CHRTS / THEIR AGENTS FOR BOTH LOAD AND DISPORT.....LAYTIME TO COMMENCE AT 1300 HRS IF NOR IS TENDERED DURING OFFICE HOURS BEFORE NOON..." (Emphasis added)

Held, although the clause begins by referring only to NOR at the port of loading, the subsequent words about the notice being given to Charterers or their agents at " BOTH LOAD AND DISPORT" were intended to mean that the entire clause applies to ports of loading and discharge and that one should not regard the second word of the clause as limiting the scope of the clause only to the load port. This conclusion was supported by the fact that there was no other clause dealing with NOR at the discharge port.

LMAA 2012 ( Jus Mundi)

_______________________

Where a typewritten clause conflicts with a printed clause, the terms of typewritten clause should govern. Held, It is axiomatic that where a typewritten (or handwritten) clause conflicts with a printed clause, the terms of typewritten (or handwritten) clause should govern. The general rule is set forth in 22 N.Y. Jur. 2d, “Contracts” §225, pp. 71-72:

“In the event of repugnancy between written and printed clauses of an instrument, that which is written will prevail over that which is printed and controls the interpretation and construction of the contract. The rationale for giving greater effect to the written rather than to the printed part of an agreement, if they are inconsistent, is that the written words are the immediate language and terms selected by the parties themselves for the expression of their meaning, while the printed form is intended for general use without reference to particular objects and aims”.

This principle has been followed in many maritime arbitrations

SMA 2688

_______________________

On the construction issue, the Respondents relied principally upon Clauses 3 and 8 of Page 2 of the Booking Note... Although expressly incorporated into the Booking Note contract, these provisions were not specifically agreed for the purpose of that contract. That is an important consideration, because where there may be doubt as to the meaning of a contract as a whole, and possible conflict between what has been specifically agreed and what has been taken from a standard form, rather more weight is to be attached to what the parties have directly focused on and agreed.

LMAA 2018