Edlow International v. BBC Chartering
In this case, the shipper claimed the return of additional lumpsum freight which it had paid under protest. The carrier had claimed the additional freight on the grounds that the cargo of Uranium Hexaflouride in cylinders had been misdescribed in the Booking Note. The arbitrator held that the description of the cylinders conformed to international standards and did not amount to a misdescription, nor had it been causative of the carrier’s inability to carry additional part cargo. The arbitrator was influenced by the fact that the carrier had held itself out as experienced in such shipments. Even had there been a misdescription, the "double freight" clause in the Bill of Lading would not have applied in this case, as the misdescription would not have been deliberate. The arbitrator allowed, however, the carrier’s claim for detention for the time spent at the discharge port removing the fittings and lashing materials provided by the shipper to secure the cargo
DMC Category Rating: Confirmed
In February 2003, the Canadian Department of Transport ("Transport Canada") instructed Edlow that the cylinders should be secured to padeyes, with lashings set on at least a 45 degree angle, with sufficient space between cylinders to allow access, so that lashings could be re-tightened during the voyage.
On 20 March 2003, BBC nominated BBC Scotland as the performing ship, estimating that she would arrive at Montreal in early April. Shortly after the nomination, Transport Canada advised both parties that calculations showed that the safe weight per square meter would be exceeded if the cargo were loaded in the tweendeck as BBC had planned. As a result, the nuclear cargo could be loaded only in the lower hold and, in consequence, BBC could not carry other cargo in that space. BBC therefore demanded that Edlow pay a revised freight of US$235,000 based on its using the "full ship." On April 4, the cargo was duly loaded and stowed on the vessel’s tanktops, in accordance with Transport Canada’s requirements and a bill of lading, marked "Freight payable as per Booking Note" was issued on April 8. Clause 11(e) of the bill of lading gave the carrier the right to claim double the amount of freight in case the "contents, weights, measurements or value of the goods" had been misdeclared.
On April 15, Edlow paid the US$125,000 lumpsum freight. The following day, BBC demanded immediate payment of the additional freight and threatened, if payment were not made, to instruct the vessel not to enter the discharge port. Negotiations followed and, on17 April, Edlow paid an additional US$75,000 in freight "under protest". On April 20, the vessel arrived at Sete and discharge of the cargo was completed on 23 April.
The contentions of the parties
BBC claimed in addition detention of some US$12,180 in respect of time spent at Sete after completion of discharge, in removing from the ship pad eyes and other lashing equipment amounting to over nearly 1,500 individual items.
Edlow, on the other hand, maintained that the description of the cargo in the Booking Note strictly conformed to international standards, reflected in regulations and drawings approved and published by the US Department of Transportation and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Both authorities described the cylinder diameter as 122cms and drawings clearly showed the stiffening rings and the lifting lugs. In negotiating the Booking Note, BBC represented that it had previously carried this cargo on numerous occasions. As carrier, BBC was responsible for the safe loading and stowage of the cargo and had failed to anticipate that the cylinders were too heavy for tweendeck stowage. As a result, BBC was bound by the terms of the Booking Note and the bill of lading, which clearly provided for a lumpsum freight of US$125,000 only. Clause 11(e) in the bill of lading was, Edlow maintained, a penalty clause and therefore unenforceable. It had paid the additional freight under duress, and under protest and on the understanding that its claim would be resolved by arbitration. It was therefore entitled to a refund of the additional US$75,000, together with attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.
The arbitrator also agreed with Edlow that the argument over the cylinders’ diameter was, in fact, irrelevant, given the stowage requirements of Transport Canada that they be secured to pad eyes with lashings set at least at a 45 degree angle with sufficient space between the cylinders to allow access for tightening lashings as necessary during the voyage.
As for clause 11(e), the arbitrator noted that there was judicial authority which held that the clause was enforceable in the case of intentional misdescription of the cargo, which was clearly not the case here.
As for the payment "under protest", the arbitrator held that Edlow had acted reasonably in the circumstances and had sufficiently preserved its right to have the issue resolved in arbitration.
In the final analysis, Edlow did not misdescribe its cargo and BBC simply performed its obligations in accordance with the Booking Note. Accordingly, Edlow was entitled to a refund of the additional freight, together with an allowance towards attorneys’ fees and costs of US$6,000.
The claim for detention
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.