The responsibilities of the shipowner and the charterer in an unamended time charterparty, such as NYPE, are usually clearly stated and understood. However, sometimes, charterers try to add clauses, in order to transfer responsibility for cargo operations onto the shipowner. North P&I Club addresses this issue.
NYPE provides that cargo handling is the charterer’s responsibility, while the Master has to ensure the safety of the vessel and its crew. Nevertheless, sometimes the charterer wants the Master to be more involved in cargo operations and will ask to change the charterparty, so that the operations are under the supervision and responsibility of the Master. The Master then shares responsibility for the safety of the cargo during cargo operations , but he\she also can object if the ship is endangered by the charterer.
[smlsubform prepend=”GET THE SAFETY4SEA IN YOUR INBOX!” showname=false emailtxt=”” emailholder=”Enter your email address” showsubmit=true submittxt=”Submit” jsthanks=false thankyou=”Thank you for subscribing to our mailing list”]
In order to avoid legal arguments between shipowners and charterers, Peter Scott says that many charterparties inlude the Inter-Club Agreement (ICA) which provides a quick and easy apportionment of liability for cargo damage.
Whereever the charterparty is unamended, the ICA appoints all liability for cargo operations to the charterer but whereever the words “and responsibility” are included to the charterparty, liability is divided 50:50 between the shipowner and the charterer. 50:50 liability will also apply if there is “a similar amendment making the Master responsible for cargo handling”.
It is notable however, that some charterers try to add words into other parts of the charterparty, hoping the shipowner will not notice. This aims to make the Master responsible for cargo handling. These actions though will most likely fail, unless the words that will be added make clear that the Master is fully responsible all for cargo operations.
According to the Club, in a relevant case, such a clause said that the Master “will be responsible for proper stowage and unseaworthiness and safety of the vessel.” The court decided that the clause did not meet the ICA requirements, as the full responsibility for cargo operations had to be clearly transferred to the Master.
