Nype Interclub Agreement Clause

The owners demanded a counter-guarantee from their charterers for a claim they had invoked with the principal owners, in accordance with Article 9 of the 2011 Inter-Club Agreement (ICA). The charter portion, an amended form from NYPE 1946, contained a clause that states: “ (l) iability for cargo claims, as between Charterers and Owners, is portioned/settled as specified by the Interclub New York Produce Exchange Agreement effective from 1996 and its subsequent subs amendment.“ The charterers rejected the owners` application for counter-safety, saying that the terms used in Term 35 contained only the parts of the 2011 ICA relating to the allocation and settlement of claims and did not contain any basis for the application of the clause (9). Unless the words „and liability“ are added to paragraph 8 or if there is a similar change that makes the master responsible for handling the cargo: in essence, Clause 8 states that if the damage is due to the safety of the vessel, the owners are responsible; damage caused by stowage and handling, and then liability of charterers; and claims in the event of default or other factors must be distributed 50/50, unless there is irrefutable and irrefutable evidence that a party was guilty. B, looting proved by the Stevedores, considered intermediaries of charterers, charterers having to bear 100% of the law. This clause has also been the subject of litigation, see Lloyd`s Maritime Law Newsletter 18/18. This case concerned a party to the charter that contained the following text in its clause 35: a recent arbitration decision in London, however, raised concerns, with the Tribunal finding that the party clause in the Charter contained only the liability provisions of the ICA and not the security obligation provided for in point 9 of the 2011 agreement. Comments: In Section 2 of the scope, it is stated that the provisions of the ICA apply, notwithstanding the contrary provisions, to any other provision of the charter party. Accordingly, any attempt to insert a different clause providing for a different distribution of liability from that of the ICA must be refuted. However, it is important to consider section 4 b) (ii) above.

Although it is not customary for „freight claims“ to be included in section 26 of the NYPE or ins.25 of the Asbatime form, the ICA does not apply at all to the contract. Comments: This clause is intended to ensure that the allocation between the two parties concerned is done in accordance with the ICA, regardless of how the allocation was agreed between other parts of the charter channel. For example, if the ICA is not included in the main portion of the charter and there are separate non-ICA clauses governing how cargo claims are to be handled, the rights between available owners and charterers whose ICA was admitted in the sub-charter part would continue to be distributed in accordance with ica. The charterers argued that the text of Article 35 did not contain the full text of the ICA 2011. The charterers invoked a restrictive interpretation of the terms „responsibility“ and „division/settlement“ of section 35, so that only the parts of the 2011 ICA relating to the allocation and settlement of claims were included in the Charter.

Kommentieren ist momentan nicht möglich.