New York Interclub Agreement

9:41 am Uncategorized

The new “security provision” is contained in Clause 9 of this 2011 agreement. As the new agreement will come into effect on September 1, 2011, we recommend that you include it in all NYPE and Asbatime charter lots. Under this new provision, as soon as one of the parties to a charter party has established a guarantee for a right to freight, provided that the deadlines set out in Clause 6 of the agreement have been met, the right to guarantee is based on reciprocity. The International Group amended the clause as follows to include an explicit reference to the safeguarding of rights: the parties chartered between Head Owners, Disponent Owners and Charterers would be essentially in back-to-back conditions. Each charter was: . International Group Recommended Charterparty Clause It goes without saying that the owners sought permission to challenge the High Court, but this was refused. It can be expected that, as a result of this attribution, in which the text of the charter clauses is not clear or open to language close to interpretation, the right to counter-security may become a topic of discussion. The award stresses that the parties must be careful in their charter clauses and verify the scope of the ICA`s inclusion. All owners and charterers are encouraged to review all charter clauses they regularly adopt to assess whether the inclusion of the ICA would include the counter-security provisions. The vessel was chartered by the applicant, a distributor owner, to charterer on a modified NYPE 1946 form with additional drivers. Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement 1996 (91 KB) Disponent Owners initiated arbitration proceedings to apply for an order for a specified benefit requiring charterers to provide counter-security in the form of a letter or club business, or a first-class bank guarantee or payment to La Treuhand. However, a recent arbitration proceeding in London raised concerns within the International Group, as the court found that the charter clause contained only the liability provisions of the ICA and not the guarantee obligation provided for in point 9 of the 2011 agreement. The charterers, on the other hand, responded to offer them counter-security in accordance with the above conditions.

The P-I Club for Charterers refused to oppose security, finding that the terms used in Article 35 of Article 35 of the charter were not sufficient to take into account the entire ICA 2011, in particular the security provisions of Clause 9. 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. Security rules would not be included. As a result of this decision, the International Group took the opportunity to review its recommended clause in the ICA charter clause to ensure that this includes the safety requirement (see Steamship Mutual Circular L317 – IG – Claims co-operation).

Comments are closed.