MÜŞTEREK HUKUKTA ZAMAN ÇARTERİ SÖZLEŞMELERİNDE GEMİYİ ÇEKME HAKKI

Year 2023, Volume: 13 Issue: 2, 271 - 298, 31.12.2023

Banu Fatma Günarslan

Abstract

Müşterek hukukta, zaman çarteri sözleşmelerinde tahsis ücreti ödeme yükümlülüğü kural olarak, esaslı bir unsur değildir. Gemiler zaman çarteri sözleşmesi hükümlerine tabi olduğunda ve bu gemiler için piyasa düştüğünde, tahsis olunanın tahsis ücretini ödemeyeceğine dair gemi maliki endişeye kapılabilir ve gerçek anlamda bir çareden yoksun bırakılabilir. Tahsis olunan tahsis ücretini ödemezse veya zamanında ödeme yapmazsa gemi maliki ne yapmalıdır?
Bu makale, düşen bir piyasada gemi malikinin başvurabileceği yolu tartışacaktır. Bu bakımdan makale öncelikle, zaman çarteri sözleşmesinin niteliğini ve tahsis ücretinin ödenmemesi durumunda gemi malikinin gemiyi çekme hakkını, bu hakkın koşullarının, haktan feragatin, muhtemel sınırlarının ve hakkın etkisinin altını çizmek suretiyle inceleyecektir. Daha sonra, tahsis ücretinin yapısını inceleyen ve karşıt sonuçlara ulaşan Astra ve Spar Shipping davaları analiz edilecektir.

Keywords

Zaman Çarteri Sözleşmeleri, Geminin Çekilmesi, Tahsis Ücreti, Astra, Spar Shipping

RIGHT TO WITHDRAW VESSEL UNDER TIME CHARTERPARTIES IN COMMON LAW

Abstract

In common law, the obligation of payment of hire is, as a rule, not essential in time charters (time charterparties). Where vessels are let on time charter terms and the market for such vessels falls, the shipowner may be concerned that if the charterer fails to pay hire as and when it falls due then it is left without a real remedy. If the charterer fails to pay hire or to pay it on due date, what should a shipowner do?
This article will critically discuss shipowner’s remedy in a falling market. In this regard, it will initially examine the nature of time charters and the shipowner’s right to withdraw the vessel for non-payment of hire, underscoring the requirements, waiver of right, possible bars and the effect of the right. Subsequently, the Astra and Spar Shipping cases, which have examined the nature of hire and reached converse decisions, will be analysed critically.

Keywords

Time Charters, Withdrawal of Vessel, Hire, The Astra, The Spar Shipping

References

• Coghlin T; Baker A. W; Kenny J; Kimball J. D; Belknap T. H, Time Charters, (7th edition, New York, Informa Law by Routledge 2014),
• Girvin S, Carriage of Goods by Sea (2nd Edition Oxford University Press 2011),
• Girvin S, Time Chater Overlap: Determining Legitimacy and the Operation of Repudiatory Breach of Contract, Journal of Business Law (2005),
• Hart N; Sir Eder B; Robb J, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading 23rd Ed, (Sweet & Maxwell 2015),
• Herman S, Cancellation Clauses in Voyage Charter Parties, SIMPLY 2006-Marlus 335,111-165,
• Kissin M, Challenging The Lagal and Commercial Justification for Reclassification of Payment of Hire As a Condition, 27 Austl. & N.Z. Mar. L. J. 69 (2013),
• Nunes T, Charterer’s Liabilities under the Ship Time Charter, Houston Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, 561, (2004),
• O’Brien F. J, Freight and Charter Hire, Tulane Law Review, vol 49, 956 (1974-1975),
• Peel E, Withdrawal for Late Payment of Hire Under a Charterparty, Law Quarterly Review (2016),
• Plomaritou E, A Review of Shipowner’s & Charterer’s Obligations in Various Types of Charter, Journal of Shipping and Ocean Engineering 4 (2014) 307-321,
• Poor W, American Law of Charter Parties and Ocean Bills of Lading (1920),
• Rogers A; Chuah J; Dockray M, Cases and Materials on the Carriage of Goods by Sea (2016),
• Stevens F, Remedies for Late Payment of Charter Hire, Journal of International Maritime Law, 23 (2017) 6, 443-452,
• Vandeventer B, Analysis of Basic Provisions of Voyage and Time Charter Parties, Tulane Law Review, vol 49, 806, (1974-1975),
• Wei G, Time Charterparties: Final Voyage and Contractual Rights, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies 1992
• Table of Cases
• Tankexpress v Compagnie Financiere Belge des Petroles (the Petrofina) [1949] AC 76
• The Georgios C [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 7
• Tenax Steamship Co Ltd v Reinante Transoceanica Navegacion SA (The Brimnes) [1973] 1 WLR 386
• Mardorf Peach & Co Ltd v Attica Sea Carriers Corp of Liberia (The Laconia) [1977] AC 850
• Cochin Refineries v Triton Shipping [1978] AMC 444
• China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corp v Evlogia Shipping Co SA (The Mihalios Xilas) [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 303 (HL)
• Scandanavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 425
• Tropwood AG of Zug v Jade Enterprises Ltd [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 232 (CA)
• Afavos Shipping Co SA v Pagnan [1983] 1 WLR 195
• Scandanavian Trading Tanker Co AB v Flota Petrola Ecuatoriana (The Scaptrade) [1983] 1 QB 529 (CA)
• Kuwait Rock Co v AMN Bulkcarriers Inc (The Astra) [2013] EWHC 865
• Spar Shipping AS v. Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co. Ltd. [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm)
• Spar Shipping [2016] EWCA Civ 982