CHAPTER 4 THE TIME CHARTER PARTY

1. CHAPTER 4 THE TIME CHARTER PARTY Section 1. Description of vessel and cargo Section 2.The period of charter and delivery and redelivery Section 3. The hire and payment of hire Section 4. Off-hire clause Section 5. Other clause

2. ⑴ Definition A time charter party is a contract under which the shipowner provides a designated manned ship to the charterer, and the charterer employs the ship during the contractual period for the agreed service against payment of hire. The time charter party may be classified as an agreement for hire of a certain vessel. ⑵ contents A time charter party mainly contains the name of the shipowners, the name of the charterer; the name, nationality, class, tonnage, capacity, speed and fuel consumption of the ship; the trading area; the agreed service, the contractual period, the time, place and conditions of delivery and redelivery of the ship; the hire and the way of its payment and other relevant matters.

3. ⑶ Character • The compensation to the shipowner is called hire instead of freight, and instead of a certain voyage, a certain hire period and trading area will be agreed. • Instead of mentioning a certain cargo, the time charter party, mostly in general terms, states the type of cargo the time charterer are allowed to carry with the ship. • Also the shipowner’s position against a third party is not the same in time chartering as in voyage chartering. • It is the time charterer who operates the ship commercially and thus also the time charterer who has the closest contact with shippers, receivers, etc.

4. ⑷ Forms • By far the largest number of time charters are fixed on the basis of the New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) charter party form. • For convenience we will examine the elements of a time charter party based on the NYPE form 46/93 (The New York Produce Exchange Time Charter - Revised 14 September 1993) to provide some ideas of the normal clauses required in a time charter party.

5. Section 1. Description of VCL and Cargo • 1. Description of the vessel • Generally, the description of the vessel is more important in the time charter party than in the voyage charter party and the description is also mostly more detailed and precise. • All details about the ship such as name, flag, classification, port of registry, deadweight, capacity, construction, speed, fuel consumption, nationality, tonnage etc. must be known by the charterers during the negotiation with the shipowners. • Charterers should form an opinion about the commercial vale of the vessel and it is therefore important for them that they have correct and sufficient information about her.

6. 1.1 Name of the ship • There seems to be no direct English authority on the question whether the name by which a vessel is described is a condition of a charter party. • The famous book [Scrutton on charter parties and bills of lading] states “Substantial accuracy in the name of the vessel will be a condition of the contract”. The charter is for the named ship alone and the charterers cannot be required to accept delivery under it of another, even of identical characteristics. • It is open to the parties to agree that another ship may be substituted for the originally named ship or to agree to more than one substitution. • The parties may also agree that the substitution be made at any time, whether before the start of the charter period, during it, or after the loss of the named or any substituted ship. • But if it intended to give a right of substitution after loss, particularly clear words must be used; for otherwise the charter will be held to have been frustrated by the loss and the right to substitute will terminate with the termination of the charter.

7. Case • The Badagry was chartered for a period of eight years, the charter providing by clause 33: “shipowners have the option to substitute the vessel with similar vessel type/size during the period of this charter party.” The charter further provided that if the vessel should become a constructive total loss, hire shall cease at the time of the casualty resulting in such loss; • The Badagry became a constructive total loss on or about 27 September. On 17 October the shipowners purported to substitute the Bonny for the Badagry. It was held by the Court of Appeal that it was not consistent with a continuation of the charter party after a constructive total loss, that the charter was frustrated before 17 October and that with the termination of the charter the right to substitute perished.

8. 1.2 Sale of the ship and flag ⑴ Sale of the ship • It seems that it is not of itself a breach of the charter for her owners to sell the ship during the period of the charter. The original owners will however continue to be responsible to the charterers for the performance of all the obligations assumed by them under the charter.

9. ⑵ CMC regulation • According to China’s Maritime Code, where the ownership of the ship under charter has been transferred by the shipowner, the rights and obligations agreed upon under the original charter shall not be affected. • However, the shipowner shall inform the charterer thereof in time. • After such transfer, the transferee and the charterer shall continue to perform the original charter.

10. ⑶ Ship’s flag • It is submitted that the statement as to the ship’s flag will usually be an intermediate term. • But where the flag of the ship has a vital bearing on her safety or on her trading opportunities---as in wartime, when the flag of the ship may determine her neutrality or otherwise---the statement may be treated as a condition, so that any breach will allow the charterers to treat the contract as discharged.

11. 1.3 Cargo capacity 1.3.1 Description of cargo capacity • The ship’s cargo capacity is described in the same way as in the voyage charter party, i.e., in most cases by deadweight and/or cubic capacity. • In some cases it is necessary to have additional information about the vessel’s cargo capacity, for instance, how many containers she can take on deck and under deck respectively. • A vessel’s cargo capacity is normally of great importance to the charterer. If a chartered vessel cannot load all the cargo the charterer wishes to ship, clearly he may miss his intended market or incur extra warehouse or transport expenses on shore as well as in arranging substitute tonnage.

12. 1.3.2 NYPE Form • The time charterers dispose all compartments which can be used for cargo. In the NYPE form this is expressed in the following way: • “The whole reach of the vessel’s hold, decks, and other cargo spaces (not more than she can reasonably and safely stow and carry), also accommodations for supercargo, if carried, shall be at the charterers’ disposal, reserving only proper and sufficient space for the vessel’s officers, crew, tackle, apparel, furniture, provisions, stores and fuel.”

13. 1.3.3 Importance of cargo capacity • As information about the vessel’s cargo capacity is very important for the time charterers, the shipowners must declare these details as correctly as possible. Statements of cargo capacity usually constitute intermediate terms. Incorrect information about the cargo carrying capacity may lead to deduction of the hire or, when the difference is big, the charterers may also be entitled to cancel the contract and claim damage. • In the New York Produce form 93 the deadweight capacity is defined as “cargo and bunkers, including fresh water and stores not exceeding ----long/metric tons”.

14. 1.4 Speed and bunker consumption 1.4.1 NYPE Form 93 • As the charterers pay hire per time unit, the vessel’s speed capability and bunker consumption are essential for judging the operating potential of the vessel. The speed capability and bunker consumption statements in the time charter parties are usually connected to certain weather conditions and to a certain draught. Also, the type of fuel is important. • In the NYPE form 93 it is said that “Speed about -----knots, fully laden, in good weather conditions up to and including maximum force-------------on the Beaufort wind scale, on a consumption of about -----------long/metric tons of---------”.

15. 1.4.2 Misdescription of statement • It seems that statements as to speed and fuel consumption will usually constitute intermediate terms in accordance with English law. • The consequences of misdescription will then depend upon the nature and consequences of the breach. Usually, a lack of speed or an excess of consumption can be compensated for damages alone. However, a serious discrepancy in either respect may be so fundamental to the charter as to entitle the charterers to treat it as being discharged.

16. 1.4.3 Time requirement for correct description • Whether the ship has to comply with the description as to speed at the time the charter is entered into or at the time of delivery, or whether it is a continuing warranty? • The whole purpose of the description of the vessel containing a speed warranty is that when she enters on her service, she will be capable of the speed in question, subject, of course, to any protection which her owners may obtain if there has been some casualty between the date of the charter party and the date of delivery affecting her speed which, under an exceptions clause, protects them from liability in relation to a failure to comply with the warranty. • Commercial considerations require the description as to the vessel’s speed to be applicable as at the date of her delivery whether or not it is applicable at the date of the charter party.

17. 1.4.4 Meaning of about • The word “about” when qualifying the warranty as to speed allows a margin either side of the stated speed; • The extent of the margin is a matter of fact, not one of law. It was argued that there were only two possible margins that could be allowed for the word “about”, half a knot or five per cent. • The English court of appeal considered that it must be tailored to the ship’s configuration, size, draft and trim, etc.

18. 1.4.5 Cases • A vessel which was chartered under a time charter party was described as capable of steaming at 14.5 knots. Due to her bottom being fouled by encrusted with molluscs, she was only capable of steaming at 10.61 knots. Held, that the owners were guilty of a breach of warranty, but were protected by an exceptions clause. The Apollonius [1978]1 Lloyd’s Rep. 53. • In the Lipa [2001] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 17, the Lipa was under time charter on Baltime form. The charter party provided consumption figures of about the number of tones best oil-fuel, and all details given in good faith but without guarantee. Charterer alleged vessel consumed excessive fuel. It was held that charter did not contain warranty about the vessel’s rate of fuel consumption.

19. 1.5 Safe port 1.5.1 Charterer’s obligation • Under the time charter party, the primary obligation on the charterers is to order the vessel only to safe ports where the ship may safely lie always afloat. • In general the criteria applicable in the case of voyage charters are applicable also to time charters. • But the shipowners of a ship are more in need of protection from a safe port promise when operating under a time charter, in accordance with which they may be required to go to ports worldwide, than when operating under a voyage charter with named or listed loading and discharging ports.

20. 1.5.2 Definition of safe port • The classic definition of a “safe port” is that “a port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship”. • If the charterer sends the vessel to an unsafe port, and she is damaged as a result, he will have to indemnify the shipowner. But if the master has acted unreasonably, knowing of the danger in the port has proceeded to enter it, and damage result, the charterer will not be liable.

21. 1.5.3 Case • The Sussex Oak was time chartered under the Baltime form and was ordered to proceed to Hamburg. On her passage up the Elbe ice was encountered, but the pilot considered it safe to proceed. When the ship was nearing the approachesto Hamburg she was stopped by a large ice flow. The ship was then in a part of the river in which she could neither turn, go astern nor anchor in safety and on the advice of the pilot forced her way through the ice, sustaining damage in consequence. • It was found as a fact that the master acted properly in proceeding without ice breaker assistance and held that the charterers were liable for the damage on the ground that Hamburg was then an unsafe port. The charterer does not guarantee that the most direct route or any particular route to the port is safe, but the voyage he orders must be one which an ordinarily prudent and skilful master can find a way of making in safety.

22. 1.5.4 Time requirement • Where the charter party requires the vessel to use safe ports only, the port, at the time when the order is given, must be prospectively safe for her to get to, stay at, so far as necessary, and in due course leave. But if some unexpected and abnormal event thereafter suddenly occurs which creates conditions of unsafety where conditions of safety had previously existed and as a result the ship is delayed, damaged or destroyed, the charterer is not liable. •  Where the time charterer has performed his primary obligation by ordering the ship to a port which at the time of the order was prospectively safe, and while she is still proceeding to that port new circumstances arise which render the port unsafe, he is under a secondary obligation to cancel his original order and order her to go to another port which at the time when the fresh order is given is prospectively safe. •  Where the vessel has entered the port and new circumstances arise which render the port unsafe, the charterer is under no secondary obligation to nominate another port, if it is impossible for the vessel to avoid the danger by leaving the port. But if it is possible for her to avoid the danger by leaving the port, the charterer must order her to leave forthwith, whether or not she has completed loading and discharge and order her to go another safe port.

23. 1.5.5 Case • The Evia under a time charter party which required that the charterers to use safe ports only was ordered by them in March 1980 to load cargo in Cuba for discharge at Basrah. She arrived and berthed on 20 August and completed discharge on 22 September, on which day war broke out between Iran and Iraq. The ship was unable to leave because of the danger to navigation. The shipowners claimed damages from the charterers for breach of their safe port obligation. •  Held by the House of Lords that there would be judgment for the charterers, for Basrah was prospectively safe at the time of nomination, and the unsafety was due to an unexpected and abnormal event after her arrival. They were not under a secondary obligation to make a fresh nomination because such an order would have been ineffective.

24. 2. The cargo 2.1 Cargo Exclusions • Besides the trading limits, the most important restriction as regards the time charterers’ freedom to use and direct the ship is the restriction on cargoes to be carried in the vessel. • The general description of cargo accepted for the vessel sometimes by itself excludes some cargoes.

25. 2.2.1 NYPE form • The printed charter party forms usually also contain a specification of cargo that is not allowed. In NYPE 1993 this clause has the following wording: • The vessel shall be employed in carrying lawful merchandise excluding any goods of a dangerous, injurious, flammable or corrosive nature unless carried in accordance with the requirements or recommendations of the competent authorities of the country of the vessel’s registry and of ports of shipment and discharge and of any intermediate countries or ports through whose waters the vessel must pass. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, in addition the following are specifically excluded: livestock of any description, arms, ammunition, explosives, nuclear and radioactive materials.

26. 2.2.3 Lawful merchandise • Lawful merchandise may include military stores and munitions. But goods will not be lawful merchandise if their loading amounts to a breach of the local law nor if they cannot lawfully be discharged at the nominated discharged ports. Presumably they must also be lawful under the law of the ship’s flag and the proper law of the charter.

27. 2.2.4 CMC • It is a breach of the contract for the charterers to ship goods excluded by the charter and the master may properly refuse an order to load such cargo. • According to the provision of article 135 of China’s Maritime Code, the charterer shall guarantee that the ship shall be employed to carry the lawful merchandise agreed. Where the ship is employed by the charterer to carry live animals or dangerous goods, a prior consent of the shipowners is required. The charterer shall be liable for any loss of the shipowner resulting from the charterer’s violation of this article.

28. 2.2.5 Other rules • The time charter parties often incorporates the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act or the Hague Rules.According to these rules relating to danger cargo carried: • First, it allows the shipowners to land, destroy or render innocuous inflammable, explosive or dangerous goods to the shipment of which they have not consented with knowledge of their nature. • Secondly, the shippers (charterers) liable for all damages and expenses arising out of such shipment. • Thirdly, it concerns shipment of such cargoes to which the shipowners have consented with knowledge of their nature but which become a danger to their ship or its cargo, and gives the shipowners the rights listed in the first.

29. 2.2 Cargo liability • In time chartering, the charterers and shipowners can allocate the liability for cargo as they wish but as liability under a bill of lading is also often involved, the situation is sometimes complex from a legal standpoint. Cargo owners usually claim under the bill of lading and the first question is whether the shipowners, time charterers, or both, are liable to the cargo owners. The second question is how the liability should ultimately be allocated between the charterers and shipowners.

30. 2.2.1 Transfer of responsibility to the charterers • In the absence of express provision, the obligation to load, stow, trim and discharge the cargo is at common law on the shipowners. The NYPE form has the effect of shifting from the shipowners to the charterers the primary responsibility for loading, stowing and trimming the cargo. It provides that “the Charterers shall perform all cargo handling, including but not limited to loading, stowing, trimming, lashing, securing, dunnaging, unlashing, discharging, and tallying, at their risk and expense, under the supervision of the Master”.

31. 2.2.1 Transfer of responsibility to the charterers • The master has the right to supervise the cargo operation, particularly from a ship safety point of view, irrespective of the words “under the supervision of the master”. But, leaving aside considerations of safety, he has no duty to the charterers to supervise. These words only qualify the primary responsibility that the NYPE form places on the charterers for the loading and stowing of the cargo: (a) if loss or damage is attributable to want of care in matters particularly within the province of the master, such as, for example, the stability of the ship; (b) if the master actually supervises the cargo operations and loss or damage is attributable to that supervision. • Where it is intended by the parties that responsibility for the operations shall be upon the shipowners, it is usual for the words “and responsibility” to be inserted after “supervision”. The addition of these words has been held to effect a prima facie transfer from the charterers back to the shipowners of liability for the entire operation of loading, stowing, trimming and discharging of the cargo.

32. 2.2.2 The Inter-Club Agreement • In order to avoid endless discussions between shipowners and charterers, several P&I Clubs have made a special agreement for the apportionment of liability for cargo under the time charter party based on the NYPE form. •  In NYPE form 1993, it states that “cargo claims as between the owners and the charterers shall be settled in accordance with the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement of February 1970, as amended May, 1984, or any subsequent modification or replacement thereof”.

33. This agreement, officially named “The Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement”, but usually called “The Inter-Club Agreement”. The latest replacement is Inter-Club Agreement 1996 has the following allocation: • “Claims in fact arising out of unseaworthiness and/or error or fault in navigation or management of the vessel: 100% Owners. • Claims in fact arising out of the loading, stowage, lashing, discharge, storage or other handling of cargo: 100% Charterers. • Claims for shortage or overcarriage: 50% Charterers and 50% Owners. • All other claims whatsoever: 50% Charterers and 50% Owners”.

34. Section 2. The period • The time charter parties regularly contain a clause stating the length of the charter period. To avoid recurring disputes on the duration of charter, it is recommended to specify clearly the exact period of hire with any margin, if also agreed.

35. 1.The period of Charter1.1 Implied margin or allowance • When a charter party is for a stated period—such as “three months” or “six months”——without any express margin or allowance, then the Court will imply a reasonable margin or allowance. • The reason is because it is not possible for anyone to calculate exactly the day on which the last voyage will end. Where such a margin is implied the charterers are not in breach if they send the ship on a final voyage which can reasonably be expected to end beyond the stated period itself but within the implied margin. • It is legitimate for the charterer to send her on a last voyage which may exceed the stated period by a few days. If the vessel does exceed the stated period--------and the market rate has gone up-------nevertheless the charterer is only bound to pay the charter rate until she is actually redelivered.

36. 1.2 No margin or allowance express or implied • But it is open to the parties to provide in the charter party — by express words or by implication — that there is to be no margin or allowance as being between a certain “minimum” and a certain “maximum” time. • In such a case the court will not imply an additional margin beyond the stated “maximum”. The charterer must ensure that the vessel is redelivered within the stated period. If he does not do so — and the market rate has gone up — he will be bound to pay the extra. That is to say, he will be bound to pay the charter rate up to the end of the stated period, and the market rate thereafter.

37. Case • The Mareva was chartered under the NYPE for a trip. By addendum No. 1 the charter was extended to five months, twenty days more or less in charterers’ option. Subsequently, a further addendum was concluded providing “charterers are to keep the vessel on time charter for a further period of 2 months minimum, 3 months maximum, in direct continuation from the end of the full period of 5 months and 20 days”. • It was held by the court that no margin beyond the further three months was to be allowed. The Mareva [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 368.

38. 1.3 Express margin or allowance • It is also open to the parties themselves to fix expressly what the margin or allowance shall be. If this has be done, such as by adding to the basic period “20 days more or less”, that leaves no room for any implied margin or allowance. The express margin is greater than any period which would normally be implied.

39. 1.4 Extension of the period • Charterers are not entitled to an extension of the period because of off-hire period which occurred during the charter unless this is expressly stated in the charter party. If such a clause is inserted it is advisable also to state the latest time by which the charterers must notify the shipowners that they intend to use their option to extend the charter period. • Furthermore, the hire for the additional period should be determined as well as the question of whether off-hire during the extension period will give the charterer a right to additional extension.

40. 2Time for delivery and redelivery 2.1 Delivery (1) Laydays and notice • For the delivery, it is usually to state a number of days which is so-called laydays, for instance “March 1-10”. If the vessel arrives too early, the charterers are not obliged to take delivery before the layday and if she arrives too late they are entitled to cancel the charter party. • The shipowners shall give the charterers not less than a few days notice of expected date of delivery, such as “7/5/3/2/1 notice of expected date of delivery”.

41. (2) NYPE • Under the New York Produce form the charterers are given the option to cancel if the ship shall not have given notice of readiness by the stated date; and the shiponwers’ notice of readiness must be valid as well as timely. • The exercise by the charterers of their right to cancel does not deprive them of the right to claim damages if the shipowners were in breach of any of their obligations under the charter and the charterers suffered loss as a result.

42. (3) CMC • According to the provision of article 131 of China’s Maritime Code, • “The shipowner shall deliver the ship within the time agreed upon in the charter party. Where the shipowner acts against the provisions of the preceding paragraph, the charterer is entitled to cancel the charter. • However, if the shipowner has notified the charterer of the anticipated delay in delivery and has given an estimated time on arrival of the ship at the port of delivery, the charterer shall notify the shipowner, within 48 hours of the receipt of such notice from the shipowner, of his decision whether to cancel the charter or not”.

43. (4) NYPE 93 • If the owners warrant that, despite the exercise of due diligence by them, the vessel will not be ready for delivery by the canceling date, and provided the owners are able to state with reasonable certainty the date on which the vessel will be ready, they may, at the earliest seven days before the vessel is expected to sail for the port or place of delivery, require the charterers to declare whether or not they will cancel the charter party. • Should the charterers elect not to cancel, or should they fail to reply within two days or by the canceling date, whichever shall first occur, then the seventh day after the expected date of readiness for delivery as notified by the owners shall replace the original canceling date. Should the vessel be further delayed, the owners shall be entitled to require further declarations of the charterers in accordance with this clause”.

44. 2.2 Redelivery(1) General note • The charterer shall redeliver the ship at the agreed redelivery date or period. Sometimes the vessel is redelivered before and sometimes after the agreed redelivery date or period. • The shipowners cannot refuse to take the ship if the charterers redeliver her earlier than they are entitled to in spite of this being a breach of contract on the charterers’ side. • The shipowners have an obligation to try to minimize their loss by seeking alternative employment for the vessel but if they fail or if they get lower revenue compared with the previous charter, they are entitled to compensation from the charterers. • It is, however, not always clear how this compensation should be calculated.

45. (2) case • The Alaskan Trader was chartered on the New York Produce form for 24 months and delivered in December 1979. In October 1980 she suffered a serious engine breakdown which it was clear would take several months to repair. The charterers indicated that they had no further use for the ship but the shipowners nevertheless proceeded with the repairs. The repairs were completed in April 1981 but the charterers declined to give the master any orders and said they regarded the charter as at an end. The shipowners did not treat the charterers’ conduct as a repudiation but continued to hold the ship at the charterers’ disposal, fully crewed and ready to sail, until the charter expired in December 1981. She was then sold for scrap. Hire was paid throughout by the charterers on a without prejudice basis. The charterers claimed to recover the hire they had paid on the basis that the shipowners should have accepted their repudiation and claimed damages. • It was held by an arbitrator that the shipowners were not obliged to accept the charterers’ repudiation in October 1980, but that they should have done so in April 1981 as the finality of the charterers’ refusal to accept the ship made it “clear that the charter was dead”. The arbitrator held further that the shipowners had no legitimate interest in holding the charterers to their contract rather than claiming damages, rejecting the various grounds upon which it was argued that the shipowners were justified in continuing to claim hire: the requirements of their bank, the difficulty in assessing damages and the difficulty in finding other employment. The court upheld the award, saying that he could find no fault the arbitrator’s approach in law and that the findings of fact were a matter for him.

46. (3) Last voyage • When the charterers are planning the last voyage for the ship under the charter they must take into consideration that she has to be redelivered in accordance with the agreement in the charter party. As it is often difficult to determine beforehand exactly when the ship shall be redelivered, the time charter party form usually have a special clause about the last voyage. • If the charterer sends the vessel on a voyage which it is reasonably expected will be completed by the end of the charter period, the shipowners must obey the directions. If she is delayed by causes for which neither party is responsible, hire is payable at the charter rate until redelivery even though the market rate may have gone up or down.

47. (4) case • The London Explorer was chartered under the NYPE form for “12 months 15 days more or less in charterers option”. She was sent on a final voyage that could have allowed redelivery well within this period but which was extended by unforeseen strikes until considerably after its expiry. The freight market had fallen and the charterers sought to establish that they were in breach and, therefore, obliged to pay damages for the period of ‘overlap’ at the then market rate instead of continuing throughout that period to pay hire at the (higher) rate stipulated in the charter. • The House of Lords rejected this argument, holding that there was no breach of contract. The orders for the final voyage were good and did not cease to be so because of unexpected delays thereafter. In any event, the hire was payable at the charter rate until redelivery.

48. (5) Over lap • If the charterer sends the vessel on a voyage which she cannot reasonably by expected to complete within the charter period, the shipowner is entitled to refuse that direction and call for another one. If the charterer refuses to give it, the shipowner can accept his conduct as a breach of contract, fix a fresh charter for the vessel, and sue for damages. • If the shipowner agrees to the voyage originally ordered by the charterer, he is entitled to be paid hire at the current market rate for the excess period.

49. (6) CMC • According to the provision of article 143 of China’ maritime law, “If, on the basis of a reasonable calculation, a ship may be able to complete its last voyage at around the time of redelivery specified in the charter and probably thereafter, the charterer is entitled to continue to use the ship in order to complete that voyage even if its time of redelivery will be overdue. • During the extended period, the charterer shall pay the hire at the rate fixed by the charter, and, if the current market rate of hire is higher than that specified in the charter, the charterer shall pay the hire at the current market rate”.

50. 3. The port or place of delivery and redelivery • The port or place of delivery and redelivery can be more or less specified. Sometimes a certain port is mentioned and sometimes a certain area or range, i.e. “vessel to be delivered and redelivered in the Mediterranean”. When only an area or a range is mentioned it is usually the shipowners who choose the place of delivery and the charterers who decide the port of redelivery. • Delivery and redelivery may not necessarily take place when the ship is in port. It is not unusual that the charter parties contain a delivery or a redelivery clause of the following type: “vessel to be delivered/redelivered on dropping outward pilot at ----- port” or “Taking inward pilot” or “Arrival Pilot Station”.