有个期租问题，大家讨论下：我们船东的一条船TCT给一个租家两个LADEN LEG,第一个TCT，租家转租给二租家，那个航次已经结束，没什么问题。第2个航次，租家在俄罗斯装港给我们船加燃油，装港没IFO 380,就用IFO 180代替，对此我们事先申明保留权利，还是让船长接了（考虑今后有可能合作）。但是租家安排加400MT重油，船长实际只接收到380MT,并在供油商的签收单上批注：AS PER SHIP'S FIGURE,BUNKER RECEIVED 380 MT.
随后租家来个邮件：
WE HAVE RCVD FM MASTER THAT BUNKER WAS SHORT OF IFO 20MT WHICH IS SUPPILED AT VANINO PORT YESTERDAY.
HOWEVER, SUPPLIER REJECTED AND SENT US BELOW MESSAGES.
PLS CHECK AND CLARIFY THIS MATTER WITH MASTER.
WE HEREBY RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY LOSSES/DAMAGES SUSTAINED WHATEVER IN THIS REGARD.
///QTE///
AS WE UNDERSTOOD NOT FIRST TIME SUPPLIERS GOT PROBLEMS FROM THIS VESSEL.
WILL INVESTIGATE THIS CASE ASAP AND GIVE YOU OUR RESPONSE AFTER RECEIVING OF SUPPORTING DOCS.
WE KINDLY ASK YOU TO REMIND OWNERS THAT AS PER OUR/SUPPLIERS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE CONTRACT BUNKERS QUANTITY MEASUREMENTS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER BARGES FIGURES NOT VESSELS. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT PAYMENT MUST BE DONE WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTION IN TIME. SO WE RESERVE OUR RIGHT TO GO TO COURT IN CASE OF NON PAYMENT/PARTIAL PAYMENT FROM YOUR/OWNERS SIDE.
///UNQTE///
+++QTE+++
AS PER SUPPLIER’S, REMARK HAS BEEN ACCEPTED ONLY DUE TO BARGE TIDE SCHEDULE AND TO AVOID FURTHER DELAY WITH OTHER VESSELS. BARGES FIGURES SIGNED WITHOUT REMARKS.
ALSO FYI SUPPLIERS RESERVED THEIR RIGHT TO CLAIM AGAINST OWNERS DUE TO BARGES DELAY.
我随后回了租家：We regret to receive the message from chtrs with regard to the alleged dispute on bunkering quantity between chtrs and bunker supplier, which is totally irrelevent with owners as we are not a party to the bunkering contract and have no knowledge whatsoever to the terms.However,since chtrs raised this issue , we hereby reject claim, if any , and would like to further point out that it is not unusal in shipping industry that from time to time, difference do exist betweem ship figure and barge figure, therefore, bunker suppliers and chtrs/owners tend to agree upon whose figure prevail in case of discrepency when nogotiating terms, for example as per that in chtrs message the suppliers claimed " AS PER OUR/SUPPLIERS TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE CONTRACT BUNKERS QUANTITY MEASUREMENTS TO BE CALCULATED AS PER BARGES FIGURES NOT VESSELS. ". Therefore, it is up for chtrs and bunker supliers to settle disputes, if any, in accordance with bunkering terms and the master was just advising chtrs ship's figure for chtrs interests and in good faith.
Nevertheless, between chtrs and us the bunker quantity on board is determined by on hire/off hire bunker survey.
Notwithstading forgoing, we noticed chtrs bunkered ifo 180 instead of ifo 380, we reserve the rights to claim chtrs losses and/or damages, if any, due to chtrs intentional breach.By doing so, chtrs actully saved much compared with bunkering same in discharge port of China, with that in mind, although, we show sympathy, we have to say chtrs themselves to accept risk of shortage , if any, as in China the figure of Chimbusco is widely recognized more accurate and reliable.
Owners rights are fully reserved.
今天租家又来个邮件：WE HAVE RCVD BELOW MSG FM SUPPLIER.
PLS CHECK AND CLARIFY THIS MATTER WITH MASTER.
///QTE///
Dear Mr. Ko,
Re: alleged 20 mts shortage
Please kindly examine all attached documents.
Please note that besides flowmeter readings, checked and signed by vessel's
representative showing that 439,029 cub.m were delivered, there is also
ullage reports made before and after delivery to the vessel according to
which 440.029 cub.m were delivered.
Two different methods showed same result.
Vessel's representative signed and stamped all documents which means that he
observed, made calculations and agreed that a quantity was delivered.
Their remark clearly says: "As per ships figure" which automatically makes
this "remark" invalid, since never ever has we even discussed possibility to
determine supplied quantity by vessel tanks' measurement not saying about
any agreement on this.
Furthermore, please not this is not the first incident with this vessel and
namely with this crew. We had similar problem some time ago.
Best regards,
Petr
///UNQTE///
TKS & B.RGDS
FULL UNQTE
我随后又回了租家：Noted chtrs message.Without prejudice to owners last.
We, however,are wondering what chtrs mean by raising this issue to us again, bearing in mind it's time charter, the master exercised due diligence to render the assistance of taking bunker replenished by chtrs. Without labouring on the issue of bunkering terms between chtrs and bunker supliers, should the bunker suppliers' figure 400 mt be accurate, chtrs would suffer no losses by paying same to suppliers as there were 400 mt fule oil received on board. On the contrary, should the master's figure be right, we do not think chtrs have any good reason to chanllege us as, in this case, the shortage is purely the business between chtrs and the bunker supplier.As such, the chtrs fail in every respect.
Considering there are disputes on ship's figure and barge's figure, we suggest chtrs to arrange bunker surveyor on their behalf for future bunkering operations, which normally cost less.
