FOREIGN TRADE UNIVERSITY FINAL EXAM QUESTIONS

HCMC CAMPUS SEA AND AIR TRANSPORT-TMAE331

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS AND
TRADE FACULTY
_________________________
PAPER NO.: 1
__________________________________
Semester: 1 Academic year: 2022 – 2023
Full-time; Class code: K58LSCM
Form of Exam: Assignment
Date of exam: 9:00 13/10/2022
Submission Deadline: 9:00 14/10/2022

Full name: Dương Thanh Nhi Grade (in number):

Date of birth: 20/08/2001 ………………..
Student ID: 1915536117
Grade (in words):
Class code: K58CLC6
Module: ………………..
Examination date: 13/10/2022 Examiner 1’s signature
Examination time: 9:00
………………..
Paper No.: 3
Examiner 2’s signature

………………..

1. Choice of law and title to sue:

- The case mention that Fiona Ltd signed a charterparty with the shipowner Titanic
Inc on the Asbatankvoy form governed by English law, so the choice of law is
English law.
- The shipowner Titanic Inc had the title to sue the charterer to pay for the demurrage
because according to the charterparty’s terms regarding laytime, the allowed loading
time was 24 hours since the commencement of laytime on 5 December 2000 while
the charterer’s loading time far exceeded the allowed time (The charterer finished
loading at 10:00 on 3 January 2001).
- The charterer had the title to sue the shipowner for late arrival and unclean Vessel
that cause difficulties for charterer to complete his loading within the allowed time
and then, he had to suffer demurrage.
For the late arrival: The laydays which was stipulated in the charterparty that it would
commence on 17 November 2000 and cancel on 22 November 2000 but the vessel
came to the port at 8am 2 December 2022. In addition, December is a period that the
Oil coordination committee of Sikka put more requirements for the domestic market
 Code: 1/HKI-20.21

and that make Reliance petroleum Ltd be unwilling to provide cargo for the vessel.
If the shipowner arrive within the laydays agreed in the contract, this problem would
not happen.
For the unclean tanks, under terms 18 and 30 c) i), “the The Owner shall clean the
tanks, pipes and pumps of the Vessel to the satisfactory of the Charterer's Inspector
who shall inspect the Vessel as per local and/or Charterer's requirements prevailing
at the time”. The shipowner in this case fail to do so and although this cleaning period
was not counted as laytime under term number 7 (Hour for loading and discharging)
in the contract, this fault of the shipowner make the vessel lost her turn in the queue
as a result of the time taken to carry additional cleaning and then have to suffer
another long wait.
2. Type of charter party
- I presume in this case it is a voyage charterparty because it was signed between the
charterer Fiona who charter the vessel Marry for transporting gas oil and shipowner
Titanic without mention any long-term working relationship. I also can see the Port,
destination, surveyor, type of cargo, restrictions in terms of cargo mentioned.
- I also observe that the Asbatankvoy is a charter party for the gas tanker trade jointly
authored by BIMCO and ASBA typically used for voyage charter party, so it would
be voyage charter party.
3. Commencement of laytime and the demurrage period
- On 2/12/2000, at 8:00 the master tendered NOR but then it was reject on the ground
that the tanks were unfit to load gas oil. According to the term 7.Hours for loading
and discharging: “ The number of running hours specified as laytime in Part I shall
be permitted the Charterer as laytime for loading and discharging cargo; but any
delay to the Vessel's condition or breakdown or inability of the Vessel's facilities to
load or discharge cargo within the time allowed shall not count as used laytime”.In
addition, the art 30 v) stipulated that “all time until connection of hoses, after the
Vessel has been passed as clean to the satisfaction of jointly appointed Inspector
shall not count as laytime, or if on demurrage, as time on demurrage.” So the period
from the NOR mentioned to the point that the vessel fit to loading does not
commence the laytime.
- On 5/12/2000, the vessel's tanks were passed fit for loading, and the master tendered
a new notice of readiness at 09.30 that day. And because the NOR stipulated that the

2/3
 Code: 1/HKI-20.21

laytime shall be commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of such
notice. So the commencement of laytime would be on 5 December 2000 at 15: 30.
- The loading time allowed is 24 hours and Fiona did not finish loading the cargo until
3 January 2001, so the commencement of demurrage would be on 6 December 2000
at 15: 30.
4. Suspension of laytime and/ or the demurrage period
- The suspension of laytime would be from 14:00 on 2 December 2000 to 15:30 on 5
December 2000 because should the commencement of laytime at 14:00 on 2
December 2000 (the first NOR is 2 December 2000 at 8:00 add 6 hours) but the
vessel was rejected to load the cargo which lead to the delay until new laytime
commenced at 15:30 on 5 December 2000. In short, it is the time when the laytime
occurred, it is suspended or not counted.
- There is no suspension of the demurrage period because during the demurrage, there
is any events that make the demurrage suspended.
5. Calculation of demurrage

Statements Allowed time Demurrage

Day, date, hour, minute Events D H M D H M
5/12/2000, 9h30 NOR tendered 8 30
6/12/2000 Loading 15 30 8 30
7/12/2000 Loading 1
… …
2/1/2001, 15h On berth, start 1
loading
3/1/2001, 10h Finish loading 10
Total 1 27 18 30

According to the case:

We have demurrage Rate: USD 10,000 per day pro rata
Days exceeded (DE)= 27 days 18 hours 30 minutes
Demurrage payable= 10,000*(27+(18,5/24)) = 277708 USD

3/3