Asbatankvoy Tanker Voyage Charterparty

Asbatankvoy Tanker Voyage Charterparty

Asbatankvoy is one of the most influential tanker voyage charterparty forms used for the carriage of petroleum and petroleum products in bulk. The form has a particularly strong commercial identity because it was originally known as Exxonvoy 1969. After Exxonvoy 1969 was withdrawn in 1977, the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (U.S.A.) Inc. reissued the same text under the code word ASBATANKVOY. For that reason, legal and arbitration reasoning developed under Exxonvoy 1969 remains directly relevant when interpreting the Asbatankvoy form.

The form is built as a practical tanker charter document rather than a general dry cargo charter. Its drafting reflects the operational realities of oil trading, including cargo nominations, shore and ship measurements, petroleum inspectors, pump performance, tank cleanliness, berth reachability, discharge orders, Worldscale-based calculations, oil pollution responsibilities, and detailed laytime and demurrage mechanics. A large part of the form is therefore concerned not merely with the ship moving from one port to another, but with how the liquid cargo is measured, loaded, carried, heated, pumped, discharged and paid for.

Commercial Structure of the Asbatankvoy Form

The charterparty is divided into a Preamble, Part I and Part II. Part I is completed by the parties and records the commercial terms of the fixture, including ship description, laydays, loading and discharging options, cargo, freight, demurrage, commission, general average, arbitration and special provisions. Part II contains the printed standard clauses. The Preamble gives Part I priority where there is a conflict with Part II, and special clauses inserted in Part I will often control or qualify the printed wording.

This structure is important because tanker fixtures frequently depend on negotiated details that are not fully resolved by the printed clauses. A named loading range, a Worldscale rate, a special pumping warranty, a cargo retention clause, a diversion clause, a cleaning clause or a port nomination rider may substantially change the commercial result. Asbatankvoy should therefore be read as one integrated document, with the filled-in boxes, typed clauses and printed clauses interpreted together.

Parties and the Meaning of Chartered Owner

The Preamble identifies the contractual counterparty as the chartered owner/owner. This wording is deliberate. Unlike some voyage forms that speak only in terms of the registered shipowner, Asbatankvoy expressly recognises that the contracting owner may be a chartered owner, disponent owner or other party controlling the ship for the purposes of the voyage. Unless the words are deleted or modified, the form accommodates the reality that tanker tonnage may be fixed through chains of control rather than directly by the registered shipowner.

The practical result is that responsibility under the charter attaches to the party contracting as owner, not necessarily to the registered owner alone. This is particularly important where bills of lading, subletting, agency, lien rights and arbitration claims are involved, because the party named as owner in the charter must be identified carefully before contractual liability or enforcement rights can be assessed.

Description and Position of the Ship

Part I begins with the Description and Position of the Ship. This section records deadweight, class, loaded draft on assigned summer freeboard in salt water, cargo capacity, coated status, heating coil status, last two cargoes, present position and expected readiness. These are not decorative details. In tanker trading, ship description may be central to whether the ship can lawfully, safely and commercially perform the voyage.

Deadweight and cargo capacity are particularly important because clause 1 requires a full and complete cargo, while clause 3 deals with deadfreight when the charterer fails to supply the quantity required. The cargo-capacity statement should take account not only of abstract deadweight, but also of the ship’s actual ability to load and carry the particular liquid cargo, including any volumetric limit, segregation requirement, expansion space, bunker allowance and operational restriction.

The class entry in Part I is linked to the owner’s obligation in clause 1 to maintain the stated class during the charter. The obligation is not merely historical. The ship must be classed as described when the charter is made and the owner must take reasonable steps to preserve that status during the contractual period. Where class is lost despite proper maintenance and reasonable precautions, the owner’s duty is to take reasonable steps within a reasonable time to restore it.

The reference to loaded draft in salt water removes uncertainty that might otherwise arise where loading or discharging takes place in fresh water. The coated and coiled entries are also commercially significant. A ship described as coated must have a coating condition consistent with that description and with the cargo to be carried. A ship described as coiled will normally be expected to have workable heating arrangements appropriate for cargoes that reasonably require heating during the voyage or discharge.

The Voyage, Laydays and Cargo Boxes

Part I also identifies the voyage by recording laydays, the cancelling date, loading port options, discharging port options and the cargo. Asbatankvoy is designed for tanker trades where port options are common and the exact port may not always be fixed at the moment of chartering. The form therefore works with both named ports and wider ranges, but nominations must still fall within the powers granted by Part I and the printed clauses.

The cargo box should identify the petroleum cargo or petroleum product to be shipped. Clause 1 permits petroleum and petroleum products in bulk, while clause 16 excludes packaged cargo and non-liquid bulk cargo. If Part I narrows the permitted cargo to clean petroleum products, dirty cargoes, crude oil, vacuum gas oil, fuel oil, naphtha or another defined cargo, that commercial description will govern the charterer’s right and obligation to load.

Clause 13 adds technical cargo restrictions by reference to vapour pressure and flashpoint. Cargo with Reid Vapour Pressure above the stated limit is excluded, and low-flashpoint cargoes below 115°F are restricted in ship-to-ship transfer except where the clause permits crude cargoes. These rules show the form’s tanker character: the nature of the liquid cargo is not merely a freight description but a matter of ship safety, cargo safety and operational compliance.

Freight, Demurrage and Commission in Part I

Part I records the freight rate, the party to whom freight is payable, the total laytime in running hours, the demurrage rate and the broker’s commission. Freight is often expressed by reference to Worldscale, especially where the voyage allows several loading or discharging alternatives. The chosen Worldscale terms may affect not only the rate but also how special port groupings, distance calculations and additional movements are treated.

The Asbatankvoy brokerage provision is less favourable to brokers than the Gencon brokerage provision. Commission is payable by the owner to the named broker on the actual amount of freight, when and as freight is paid. The form does not give the broker a broad printed right to compensation where no freight is earned. Unless special wording changes the position, the broker’s entitlement is linked to paid freight rather than to estimated freight or to non-execution indemnity.

General Average, Arbitration and TOVALOP

Part I requires the parties to choose London or New York for general average and arbitration. This selection is more than a procedural detail. It may indicate the law and practice governing general average adjustment, and it also points strongly toward the law governing the charterparty as a whole. Where the parties fail to strike out one of the alternatives, uncertainty may arise and the arbitration provision may become difficult to enforce.

The TOVALOP box reflects the historical background of tanker pollution arrangements. TOVALOP and CRISTAL were voluntary tanker pollution compensation schemes developed before and alongside international oil pollution conventions. They are now mainly of historical importance, having been superseded by modern international liability regimes and voluntary schemes such as STOPIA and TOPIA. Nevertheless, the presence of TOVALOP in the form illustrates the oil-industry context in which Asbatankvoy was drafted.

Clause 1: Warranty, Voyage and Cargo

Clause 1 is the core operating clause of the Asbatankvoy form. It requires the ship, classed as stated in Part I and maintained during the charter, to proceed with all convenient dispatch to the loading port or ports named or nominated under clause 4, or so near thereto as the ship may safely get while always afloat. The ship must be seaworthy, with pipes, pumps and heater coils in good working order, and in every respect fitted for the voyage, so far as these conditions can be attained by due diligence.

The clause then requires the ship to load a full and complete cargo of petroleum or petroleum products in bulk, within what the ship can reasonably stow and carry after allowing for bunkers, consumables, water, complement and cargo expansion space. Once loaded, the ship must proceed forthwith and directly to the discharging port or ports ordered on signing bills of lading, or so near thereto as the ship may safely get while always afloat, and deliver the cargo.

The owner’s seaworthiness and cargoworthiness obligations are qualified by due diligence. This means the owner is not an insurer of absolute physical perfection, but the owner must exercise proper care to make the ship fit. Because the charter incorporates Hague Rules principles through the bill of lading and clause paramount structure, the due diligence obligation must be read with cargo-care duties and cannot be treated as an empty formality.

The reference to all convenient dispatch does not usually require maximum possible speed regardless of economics. It requires fair and reasonable progress, with proper regard to the chartered adventure. However, an owner who fixes an interim voyage or performs maintenance without allowing sufficient time to reach the loading port may be exposed if the ship misses her expected readiness or cancelling date. The shipowner must honestly and reasonably believe the expected readiness date stated when the charter is made.

Heating of Cargo

Clause 1 also deals with heating. If heating is requested by the charterer, the owner must exercise due diligence to maintain the requested temperatures. Where the ship is described as coiled, and the cargo reasonably requires heating, the ship should have heating arrangements suitable for the cargo contemplated by the charter. If the cargo is heavy, waxy or viscous, insufficient heating can cause serious delay, blockage, pump difficulty, cargo retention or cargo damage.

The obligation to heat does not depend only on an express request in every situation. If the owner knows, or ought to know, that the cargo characteristics require heating as a proper cargo-care precaution, failure to heat may raise cargo-care issues. The safer commercial practice is to state the required loading, carriage and discharge temperatures clearly in the charter and to ensure that the ship’s heating equipment can realistically maintain them.

Clause 2: Freight

Clause 2 provides that freight is paid at the rate stated in Part I and is computed on the intake quantity, except for deadfreight under clause 3, as shown on the petroleum inspector’s certificate. Freight is payable by the charterer without discount upon delivery of the cargo at destination, less permitted disbursements or advances made to the master or the owner’s agents at loading or discharge ports and the cost of insurance on those advances.

This clause gives Asbatankvoy a distinctive freight mechanism. Freight is calculated on the quantity taken into the ship, not on the delivered quantity, and no deduction is allowed for water or sediment contained in the cargo. The owner is therefore generally paid on the gross intake quantity measured at the loading end, even though ordinary cargo-care claims may still be pursued separately if the charterer or cargo interest proves loss or damage for which the owner is responsible.

The phrase without discount is central. It means the charterer cannot withhold freight as security for cargo shortage, cargo damage, market loss, demurrage disputes, counterclaims or unrelated claims unless the charter expressly allows the deduction. U.S. arbitration practice has treated this obligation as particularly strong and has often supported immediate or partial final awards for unpaid freight where the charterer has made unauthorised deductions.

Modern tanker fixtures often add cargo retention clauses. These clauses may allow the charterer to deduct the value and freight element of pumpable cargo remaining on board after discharge, but only if the agreed conditions are met. The exact wording matters. Some clauses create only a temporary cash-flow deduction, while others make the independent surveyor’s determination final and binding. The identity, independence and scope of the surveyor’s determination can therefore become decisive.

Clause 3: Deadfreight

Clause 3 applies where the charterer fails to supply a full cargo. In that event, the master may choose, and the charterer may request, that the ship proceed on the voyage with the cargo loaded, provided the tanks containing cargo are sufficiently filled to keep the ship in seaworthy condition. If that occurs, deadfreight is paid at the freight rate stated in Part I on the difference between the intake quantity and the quantity the ship would have carried if loaded to her minimum permissible freeboard for the voyage.

Deadfreight is essentially the owner’s compensation for the charterer’s failure to provide the cargo quantity required by the charter. The Asbatankvoy formula can be favourable to the owner because it uses the contractual freight rate and focuses on the difference between actual intake and the quantity that should have been loaded. However, the clause assumes that some cargo has been loaded and that the voyage proceeds. If no cargo is loaded and the voyage never takes place, damages are normally assessed by ordinary principles rather than by the clause 3 formula.

In practice, an owner claiming deadfreight should make a clear and timely demand for additional cargo unless it would be useless to do so. A late protest after loading has finished may not be enough if the terminal or supplier could realistically have loaded more cargo. Where the terminal clearly refuses further cargo or disconnects hoses and issues documents for the smaller quantity, a formal demand may be less critical because the refusal is already evident.

The meaning of full cargo has generated disputes, especially where light products fill the ship’s cubic capacity before the ship reaches her deadweight capacity. U.S. awards under Asbatankvoy have often treated the obligation as a deadweight obligation unless the charter clearly includes a volumetric limitation. If the parties want the charterer’s obligation to stop when the ship’s cubic capacity is reached, that should be stated expressly, as later tanker forms and rider clauses often do.

Clause 4: Naming Loading and Discharging Ports

Clause 4 regulates the timing and manner of port nominations. For loading, the charterer must name the loading port or ports at least 24 hours before the ship is ready to sail from her last previous discharge port, or from the bunkering port for the voyage, or upon signing the charter if the ship has already sailed. The charterer may also order the ship to specified places for wireless orders, such as St. Kitts or Port Said, depending on the voyage route described in the clause.

For discharge, the charterer may nominate by radio on or before arrival at or off certain geographical points such as Land’s End, Suez or Gibraltar, depending on the intended discharging range. The nomination must be lawful, consistent with Part I and consistent with the bills of lading. If a bill of lading names a specific discharge port, that naming may operate as an exercise of the charterer’s option and may restrict later changes unless a clear diversion or renomination clause is included.

Clause 4(c) deals with extra expense and time lost in connection with a change of loading or discharging ports. Under English treatment, the better view after The Antiparos is that clause 4(c) does not itself create a free-standing right to renominate. It provides consequences where a change is allowed or accepted. Where an express diversion clause is desired, the charter should say so in plain terms and should also state how freight, extra distance, bunkers, port costs and time are to be calculated.

U.S. arbitration history under Asbatankvoy shows why precise drafting matters. Different awards reached different views on the tanker custom of changing discharge ports after bills of lading had been issued. The disagreement between awards such as The Despina and The Rokos V led to the development of express diversion wording, including clauses that allow the charterer to change loading or discharging nominations despite issued bills of lading, subject to paying extra time and expense.

Clause 5: Laydays and Cancelling

Clause 5 states that laytime shall not commence before the date stipulated in Part I unless the charterer sanctions an earlier commencement. It also gives the charterer an option to cancel if the ship is not ready to load by 4 p.m. local time on the cancelling date stated in Part I. The option must be exercised by giving notice within 24 hours after the cancelling date, otherwise the charter remains in force.

A late ship does not automatically give the charterer a damages claim. The cancelling clause gives a contractual option to cancel, but damages usually require an independent breach, such as unreasonable delay on an interim voyage, misleading information about the ship’s position, failure to proceed with convenient dispatch, or breach of a condition of readiness. U.S. awards have repeatedly emphasised that cancellation must be timely, unequivocal and final.

The ship must be ready to load in a practical and contractual sense. Tank cleanliness, cargo suitability, required certificates, port acceptance and operational readiness may all matter. A petroleum inspector’s rejection of tanks is not automatically the same as a cancellation notice. The charterer should clearly state whether it is cancelling, reserving rights, requiring further cleaning, accepting the ship, or extending the cancelling date.

Clauses 6 and 7: Notice of Readiness and Laytime Calculation

Clause 6 provides that, upon arrival at the customary anchorage at each loading or discharge port, the master or agent must give notice to the charterer or agent by letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone that the ship is ready to load or discharge, berth or no berth. Laytime then begins after six hours from receipt of the notice, or when the ship arrives in berth, whichever first occurs, subject to the rest of the charter.

The phrase customary anchorage is important. The ship need not necessarily be within strict legal port limits, but the ship must have reached the normal waiting place for ships serving that port, or an accepted equivalent where port practice so requires. Notice given while merely passing an entrance point, before the ship has reached the customary waiting area, is likely to be ineffective unless special circumstances justify a different result.

Notice must be received by the charterer or the charterer’s agent. Mere knowledge that the ship has arrived is not necessarily enough where the contract prescribes the giving of notice. The form does not mention email, and a fixture relying on email notices should include express modern wording. In practice, properly recorded notice procedure is essential because the demurrage calculation may later depend on the exact time of receipt.

Clause 7 provides the number of running hours allowed for loading and discharging and sets out exceptions from used laytime. Delay caused by the ship’s condition, breakdown or inability of the ship’s facilities to load or discharge within the time allowed does not count as used laytime. Time lost because owner or port authority regulations prohibit night work is also excluded, while night restrictions imposed by the charterer, shipper or consignee count as used laytime.

Time consumed in moving from loading or discharge anchorage to berth, discharging ballast water or slops does not count as used laytime. This exclusion is usually directed at the first movement from anchorage to berth and the normal preliminary operations associated with cargo work. It does not automatically cover every later shifting movement, waiting period, inter-berth move or operational delay unless the wording or circumstances justify that result.

The six-hour free period has been heavily discussed in U.S. arbitration. The majority position has generally been that notice may be validly tendered before the first layday, so that the six-hour period can expire before laytime is legally permitted to start. Another recurring issue is whether the six-hour period is available again at a discharge port after all laytime has already been used. The majority view has treated the period as unavailable once the ship is already on demurrage, unless the charter says otherwise.

Delay Getting Into Berth and Reachable on Arrival

Clause 6 excludes delay caused to the ship getting into berth after notice of readiness where the cause is beyond the charterer’s control. However, this must be read with clause 9, under which the charterer must designate and procure a safe place or wharf, or ships or lighters, reachable on arrival. The relationship between these clauses is one of the defining features of Asbatankvoy laytime law.

The House of Lords decision in The Laura Prima established that the charterer cannot rely on the final sentence of clause 6 to excuse waiting time where the berth was not reachable on arrival because the charterer had failed to provide a reachable berth under clause 9. The principle has been applied beyond physical congestion. In The Fjordaas, delay caused by night navigation restrictions, lack of tugs, weather and strike circumstances was still approached through the reachable-on-arrival framework.

This means berth congestion is normally a charterer’s risk under Asbatankvoy where no reachable berth has been provided. Cargo unavailability is also usually a charterer’s risk because the charterer’s duty to provide cargo is not delegated to the supplier or terminal. By contrast, true navigational risks, unexpected channel closures or marine casualties may be treated differently, depending on the facts and the wording of any added clauses.

Clause 8: Demurrage

Clause 8 requires the charterer to pay demurrage per running hour and pro rata at the rate stated in Part I for all time by which loading, discharging and used laytime exceed the allowed laytime. The form contains specific half-rate or exclusion wording for certain events, including fire, explosion, storm, mechanical breakdown at shore facilities, breakdown of the ship’s equipment, and certain labour events, but the exact effect depends on the wording and causation.

Demurrage under Asbatankvoy is a liquidated compensation regime for delay beyond the agreed laytime. Once the ship is on demurrage, ordinary laytime exceptions do not always continue to protect the charterer. The familiar maxim once on demurrage, always on demurrage remains influential unless the charter contains wording strong enough to interrupt or reduce demurrage after laytime has expired.

For the charterer to rely on an exception, causation must be proved. It is not enough to point to a storm, strike, fire or equipment problem unless that event actually caused the relevant delay and falls within the clause. Likewise, if owner’s fault caused the delay, the charterer may resist demurrage even where no printed exception directly applies, because a party cannot normally claim contractual compensation for delay brought about by its own breach or fault.

Clause 9: Safe Berthing and Shifting

Clause 9 requires the ship to load and discharge at a safe place or wharf, or alongside ships or lighters reachable on arrival, designated and procured by the charterer. This clause is one of the most powerful provisions in the form because it places responsibility on the charterer for the availability and reachability of the berth, not merely for the abstract safety of the port.

The clause also deals with shifting. If the charterer requires the ship to shift, the charterer will normally be responsible for the time and expense as provided by the charter. Issues arise when shifting is between berths, between anchorage and berth, or to and from a lightering area. The legal treatment depends on whether the movement falls under clause 7, clause 9, clause 4(c), a special lightering clause or another rider.

Clause 10: Pumping In and Out

Clause 10 states the basic tanker principle: the charterer bears the expense, risk and peril of pumping cargo into the ship, while the owner bears the expense of pumping cargo out of the ship up to the ship’s permanent hose connections, where delivery is taken by the charterer or consignee. The ship must supply pumps, necessary power and necessary hands for discharging, subject to regulatory restrictions on fire or power use.

This division does not free the owner from responsibility for defects in the ship, defective equipment, poor tank segregation, negligent operation or cargo contamination caused by matters for which the owner is responsible. Loading may be at the charterer’s expense and risk, but the owner still controls the ship’s tanks, lines, valves, pumps and onboard cargo arrangements.

Asbatankvoy itself does not contain a detailed pumping warranty. Because of that, many fixtures add a clause stating that the ship will discharge the entire cargo within 24 hours or maintain a stated pressure at the ship’s rail, often 100 psi, provided shore facilities permit. These warranties are heavily fact-sensitive. The owner usually needs reliable pumping logs, manifold pressure evidence, letters of protest and proof of shore restriction if discharge takes longer than warranted.

Clause 10 also addresses shore-line clearing. If the charterer requires the ship to clear shore pipelines after discharge by pumping water through them, time consumed for that purpose applies against allowed laytime. This can be important where the shore terminal’s procedure delays hose disconnection and affects the completion time for laytime or demurrage purposes.

Short Delivery and Cargo Measurement

Oil cargo shortage disputes are usually disputes about evidence as much as law. Ship figures, shore figures, loading ullages, discharge ullages, temperature, API gravity, free water, sediment, clingage, line content and retained cargo must all be evaluated. The claimant must prove short delivery on the balance of probability. If an apparent shortage is established, the owner must show that the shortfall was caused by a matter for which the owner is not responsible or that the apparent figures do not reflect the true quantity loaded and delivered.

The permanent hose connection is commercially important because it marks the point at which cargo delivery is normally treated as occurring. Unless a meter or measurement system captures quantity at that exact transfer point, the tribunal must infer what happened from ship and shore records. This is why contemporaneous documentation is critical in tanker claims.

Clause 11: Hoses and Mooring at Sea Terminals

Clause 11 places responsibility on the charterer for furnishing hoses for loading and discharge. Hoses are to be connected and disconnected by the charterer, or at the owner’s option by the owner at the charterer’s risk and expense. In sea-terminal operations, mooring arrangements and hose handling may be more complex than at a conventional berth, so the clause allocates key operational risks and costs to the charterer.

Hose connection and disconnection often define the practical boundary of laytime. Tanker statements of facts should record when hoses are connected, when loading or discharge starts, when cargo finishes, when line clearing occurs and when hoses are finally disconnected. Small differences in these times can produce significant demurrage consequences.

Clause 12: Dues, Taxes and Wharfage

Clause 12 allocates cargo taxes, dues and similar charges to the charterer. It also addresses taxes on freight and charges linked to the nominated berth or place. The broad commercial idea is that charges imposed on cargo or freight because of the charterer’s commercial adventure are for the charterer, while ordinary ship charges and charges for services provided to the ship may remain for the owner unless the wording transfers them.

Disputes can arise where a charge is formally imposed on the owner but economically operates as a freight tax, or where a berth charge is incurred because of a berth nominated by receivers. The true character of the charge, rather than its label alone, must be examined.

Clauses 13 to 18: Cargo Restrictions, Ice, General Cargo, Quarantine, Fumigation and Cleaning

Clause 13 excludes cargoes above the stipulated vapour pressure and restricts certain low-flashpoint cargoes in ship-to-ship transfer. Clause 16 confirms that the charterer may not ship packaged goods or non-liquid bulk cargo. Together, these provisions confine the charter to tanker cargoes and protect the owner from being required to perform a materially different trade.

Clause 14 deals with ice. If the loading or discharge port is inaccessible because of ice, the master must direct the ship’s course according to judgment and notify the charterer, shipper or consignee where possible. The charterer may then order the ship to a free port, or require the ship to wait, with time and expense consequences. The ice wording is different from the Gencon ice clause and must be applied according to its own machinery.

Clause 17 deals with quarantine and fumigation. If the charterer sends the ship to a port where quarantine already exists, delay counts as used laytime. If quarantine is declared after the ship is already on passage, the resulting position is treated differently. Fumigation at the charterer’s order is generally for the charterer’s time and expense consequences unless the wording or facts change the result.

Clause 18 requires the owner to clean the tanks, pipes and pumps to the satisfaction of the charterer’s inspector. This is a demanding practical requirement in tanker trades. Nevertheless, the inspector’s approval does not necessarily replace the owner’s seaworthiness and cargoworthiness obligations. If tanks pass inspection but contamination later results from defective lines, valves, residues or poor ship management, approval alone may not answer every claim.

Tank-cleaning clauses should be handled carefully. The charter should specify the last cargoes, the required tank standard, the method and cost of inspection, who bears time for additional cleaning, whether a failed inspection affects notice of readiness, and whether the inspector must act reasonably. Without precise rider wording, tank-cleanliness disputes can become expensive and evidence-heavy.

Clause 19: General Exceptions

Clause 19 contains general exceptions protecting the ship, master and owner from specified causes of loss, damage, delay or failure in performance. Many of these exceptions resemble Hague Rules exceptions, but the clause is not a complete answer to all liability. It must be read with the clause paramount, the owner’s due diligence obligations, the cargo-care duties, and any specific charter provision dealing with laytime, demurrage, pumping, berth reachability or cargo condition.

General exceptions are not usually read as interrupting laytime or demurrage unless the wording clearly applies to those subjects. Asbatankvoy contains specific laytime and demurrage machinery in clauses 6, 7 and 8, so a party seeking to avoid demurrage usually needs to bring the case within those provisions or show owner’s fault.

Clause 20: Bills of Lading and Incorporated Clauses

Clause 20 requires bills of lading to be issued in a specified form and signed by the master as presented, provided they are consistent with the charter. The clause preserves the charterparty rights of owner and charterer notwithstanding the issue of bills of lading. In tanker practice, this is important because the bill of lading may name a discharge port, identify cargo quantity, contain charter incorporation wording and move into the hands of buyers or banks.

The clause incorporates important bill of lading terms into the charter and the bills, including the clause paramount, New Jason wording, general average provisions, both-to-blame collision wording, limitation wording, war risks, deviation liberties, salvage and lien provisions. These terms are intended to align the charterparty with cargo-document rights, but they can create complex issues where the bill of lading holder is not the charterer.

The clause paramount incorporates Hague Rules or applicable cargo legislation into the contractual relationship. Under U.S. treatment, COGSA principles are central to cargo claims, notice periods, package or customary freight unit limitation, in-transit loss provisions and attempts to deduct cargo claims from freight. A charter clause that conflicts with mandatory cargo legislation may not be enforceable against cargo interests.

General Average, Jason and Salvage under Clause 20

The New Jason wording is designed to preserve the owner’s right to general average contribution even where the event giving rise to the general average was connected with negligence for which the owner is not legally responsible. It also addresses salvage by ships owned or operated by the same owner and allows the owner to require deposits or security before delivery.

The general average provisions refer to York-Antwerp Rules and to the selected adjustment place. If London is chosen, English adjustment practice will generally be relevant. If New York is chosen, U.S. practice may affect the outcome. The selection in Part I should therefore be completed carefully because it may control the adjustment framework and interact with the arbitration clause.

War Risks and Deviation Liberties

The war risks provisions in Asbatankvoy follow the general model of allowing the owner or master to avoid exposing the ship, crew or cargo to war-related dangers and to request alternative discharge orders where necessary. They differ in wording from the Voywar clauses found in Gencon, but the commercial purpose is similar: the ship should not be forced into a perilous adventure merely because the original voyage described a port or route that has become affected by war risks.

Clause 20 also contains deviation liberties. The ship may have liberty to call at ports in or out of the route for bunker, crew, cargo or other stated purposes, and may deviate to save life or property. These liberties must be reconciled with clause 1, which requires the ship to proceed directly to the discharge port. Because liberty clauses can dilute the direct-voyage obligation, they are usually construed according to their commercial purpose rather than as unlimited permission to delay the cargo adventure.

Clause 21: Lien

Clause 21 gives the owner an absolute lien on the cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage and the costs of recovering them, including attorney fees. The lien continues after delivery into the possession of the charterer or any holder of a bill of lading who is aware of the lien. The practical value of the lien depends on possession, notice, timing and the identity of the party holding the cargo.

A cargo lien is strongest before delivery or while the cargo remains under the control of an agent, warehouse or storage party acting consistently with the owner’s rights. Once cargo is released without preserving the lien, the lien may be lost in practical terms. Because tanker cargoes are often discharged into shore tanks or sold onward rapidly, lien enforcement needs swift documentary and operational action.

Clause 22: Agents

Clause 22 states that the owner shall appoint the ship’s agents at all ports. This resembles the agency structure found in other voyage forms. The owner-appointed port agent typically assists with port entry, berthing, disbursements, communications, inward and outward formalities, local documentation and practical attendance on the ship.

In tanker operations, the same local agent may communicate with terminals, inspectors, receivers, charterers and the master. That does not automatically mean the agent acts for all parties for every purpose. The facts must show whose instructions the agent was carrying out and for whose account the relevant act was done. Dual agency problems should be addressed expressly where local practice is complex.

Clause 23: Breach

Clause 23 provides that damages for breach include all provable damages and all costs of suit and attorney fees incurred in an action under the charter. The wording is especially relevant in U.S. proceedings, where attorney-fee recovery often depends on contract wording. However, the phrase all provable damages does not remove the ordinary requirements of causation, mitigation and remoteness.

A party claiming breach must still prove the breach, the loss caused by it, the amount of that loss and the recoverability of the loss under the applicable legal rules. The clause supports recovery of proven legal costs and attorney fees where the governing law gives effect to the agreement, but it does not convert speculative or remote commercial losses into recoverable damages.

Clause 24: Arbitration

Clause 24 sends disputes to arbitration in New York or London, depending on the place selected in Part I. The arbitration agreement is broad, covering all differences and disputes of whatsoever nature arising out of the charter. An arbitration clause is normally separable from the main contract, so it may survive termination, frustration, repudiation or other disputes about the continuing effect of the charter.

The chosen seat of arbitration is commercially significant. London points toward English law and English arbitration procedure. New York points toward U.S. maritime law and Society of Maritime Arbitrators practice. The chosen forum may affect cargo claims, attorney fees, partial final awards, discovery practice, interest, costs and enforcement strategy.

Clause 25: Sublet

Clause 25 gives the charterer the right to sublet the ship, while confirming that the charterer remains responsible for fulfilment of the charter in all its terms and conditions. This preserves the owner’s contractual recourse against the original charterer even where a sub-charterer, trader, receiver or related company performs parts of the cargo adventure.

Subletting does not by itself create privity between the owner and the sub-charterer. The owner normally looks to the charterer, and the sub-charterer looks to its own contractual counterparty. However, subletting may matter when bills of lading are issued, when sub-freights are claimed, when cargo orders are passed down a chain, or when the charterer seeks to recover from a sub-charterer losses first claimed by the owner.

Clause 26: Oil Pollution

Clause 26 reflects the tanker industry’s concern with oil pollution avoidance. It requires the owner to participate in the charterer’s oil pollution avoidance programme and restricts overboard discharge of oily water, oily ballast and persistent oil residues. The clause reflects practices such as Load on Top, under which compatible cargo may be loaded over retained residues in cargo or slop tanks.

Oil pollution law has developed substantially since the Asbatankvoy form was drafted. Modern tanker owners must consider international conventions, national financial responsibility rules, P&I Club cover, pollution certificates, port-state requirements, sanctions, spill-response obligations and charterer-specific compliance programmes. A historic printed pollution clause should therefore be supplemented by modern rider wording where the trade requires it.

Operational Documents and Evidence

Asbatankvoy disputes are often won or lost on documents. The key records include the charterparty and riders, voyage orders, NORs, statements of facts, pumping logs, ullage reports, inspector certificates, letters of protest, berth logs, terminal messages, bills of lading, heating logs, tank-cleaning certificates, cargo retention reports, draft and freeboard records, and invoices for freight, demurrage, advances and extra expenses.

The master should protest promptly where the ship is short-loaded, cargo supply stops prematurely, the terminal delays berth allocation, shore pressure is inadequate, hoses are not ready, shore lines require flushing, the terminal prevents night work, the cargo is supplied at an improper temperature, or the ship cannot load or discharge at the expected rate because of shore restrictions. Contemporaneous protest is not a formality; it is often the best evidence of causation.

Practical Drafting Points

Asbatankvoy is still commercially useful, but many of its printed clauses require careful updating. The parties should consider adding clear email-notice wording, modern sanctions and war-risk clauses, a precise pumping warranty, a cargo retention clause, a diversion clause, tank-cleaning standards, ROB procedures, in-transit loss rules, oil-pollution compliance clauses, cybersecurity wording, and modern arbitration administration details where required.

Parties should also state whether the charterer’s full-cargo obligation is by deadweight, cubic capacity, minimum quantity, maximum quantity, shore availability, natural segregation or another measure. If several grades are carried, the charter should define the number of grades, segregations, compatible residues, heating requirements and tank acceptance procedure. Ambiguity in these areas often leads directly to demurrage, deadfreight, contamination or shortage claims.

Conclusion

Asbatankvoy remains a highly practical tanker voyage charterparty because it addresses the core commercial risks of petroleum transportation: ship description, port nomination, cargo quantity, freight, deadfreight, laytime, demurrage, berth reachability, pumping, tank cleanliness, cargo measurement, bills of lading, lien, arbitration and oil pollution. Its strength is that it reflects real tanker operations. Its weakness is that many provisions are old, dense and dependent on careful interaction with rider clauses.

The safest approach is to treat Asbatankvoy not as a simple printed form, but as a technical operating contract. Each Part I entry, each special provision and each printed clause should be checked against the intended cargo, loading range, discharge options, shore facilities, pumping expectations, documentary procedures and governing law. When drafted carefully, the form gives a reliable framework for tanker voyage performance. When left incomplete or unclear, it can create exactly the disputes it was intended to prevent.