Time Charters


Conduct of Officers; Supercargo; Sailing Directions; Log; Ventilation of Cargo

Conduct of Officers; Supercargo; Sailing Directions; Log; Ventilation of Cargo

“80. 9. That if the Charterers shall have reason to be dissatisfied with the conduct of the Captain, Officers, or Engineers, the Owners shall on
81. receiving particulars of the complaint, investigate the same, and, if necessary, make a change in the appointments.
82. 10. That the Charterers shall have permission to appoint a Supercargo, who shall accompany the vessel and see that voyages are prosecuted
83. with the utmost despatch. He is to be furnished with free accommodation, and same fare as provided for Captain’s table, Charterers paying at the
84. rate of $1.00 per day. Owners to victual Pilots and Customs Officers, and also, when authorized by Charterers or their Agents, to victual Tally
85. Clerks, Stevedore’s Foreman, etc., Charterers paying at the current rate per meal, for all such victualling.
86. 11. That the Charterers shall furnish the Captain from time to time with all requisite instructions and sailing directions, in writing, and the
87. Captain shall keep a full and correct Log of the voyage or voyages, which are to be patent to the Charterers or their Agents, and furnish the Char-
88. terers, their Agents or Supercargo, when required, with a true copy of daily Logs, showing the course of the vessel and distance run and the con-
89. sumption of fuel.
90. 12. That the Captain shall use diligence in caring for the ventilation of the cargo.”w
22.1 Clauses 9 to 12 of the New York Produce form deal with a variety of particular topics. They are largely self-explanatory and have not given rise to difficulty or controversy.


22.2 The charterers’ right to appoint a supercargo is not often exercised nowadays. The charterers are responsible, towards the owners, for their supercargo’s conduct. The Imvros is a recent example of a case involving a supercargo’s negligence in relation to stowage. So, if a supercargo involves himself in directing stowage operations and through his negligence in that regard causes damage to ship or cargo, the charterers will responsible to the owners for that damage including any resulting liability of the owners to cargo interests, even if “and responsibility” had been added in Clause 8 (see paragraph , above).

Requisite instructions

22.3 The charterers’ obligation to furnish the master with “all requisite instructions” may have particular importance in dangerous cargo cases (see to , above). For example, had The Agios Nicolas concerned the New York Produce form, rather than the Baltime form, breach of Clause 11 might have been a straightforward basis for the owners’ claim.

Sailing directions

22.4 For a discussion of the scope and effect of the charterers’ right, under Line 86 and under Clause 8, to direct the ship to sail between ports by a particular route, see The Hill Harmony and et seq., and , above.

U.S. Law

Charterer’s voyage instructions

22A.1 In The Andros Mentor, SMA 2125 (Arb. at N.Y. 1985), the ship was chartered for a trip from Vancouver to the Philippine Islands. The charterer presented the master with voyage orders to follow the instructions of a weather routing service. The master declined to follow these instructions, however, and instead took a more southerly route recommended by a service retained by the owner. Although the route recommended by the owner’s company added about 688 miles to the length of the voyage, the master decided to follow it because, based on prior experience in trans-Pacific crossings, he believed the more southerly route would be safer and more economical. The charterer later deducted hire for the additional time required to complete the voyage. 22A.2 The panel’s decision illustrates the interplay between Clauses 11 and 24 of the New York Produce form. The panel stated that whereas Clause 11 confers a duty upon the charterer to provide the master with written instructions and sailing directions, it also implies a duty upon the master to follow them. Because under a time charter the risk of delay due to bad weather rests with the charterer, Clause 11 permits charterer to use a weather routing service of its choice and for its own account. At the same time, the responsibility for safe navigation remains with the master:

The Master is not under an absolute obligation to follow the advice of any routing service; he is the sole judge when it comes to deciding upon the best and safest course to take from point of origin to destination, having in mind the best interests of both Owner and Charterer and the safety of his vessel, cargo and crew.

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

Copyright © 2024 Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited. Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited is registered in England and Wales with company number 13831625 and address 5th Floor, 10 St Bride Street, London, EC4A 4AD, United Kingdom. Lloyd's List Intelligence is a trading name of Maritime Insights & Intelligence Limited.

Lloyd's is the registered trademark of the Society Incorporated by the Lloyd's Act 1871 by the name of Lloyd's.