GENCON 1994 Voyage Charterparty
GENCON 1994 is one of the most important standard voyage charterparty forms in dry bulk and general tramp shipping. It replaced much of the older GENCON 1976 wording with a more modern commercial structure, clearer allocation of operational responsibilities, expanded remedies for shipowners, updated freight provisions, revised strike and war risk clauses, and a dedicated law and arbitration mechanism.
The form still follows the basic voyage charterparty model: the shipowner agrees to provide a named ship for a defined cargo voyage, while the charterer undertakes to provide the cargo, pay freight, and perform the loading and discharging obligations allocated to the charterer. The 1994 revision, however, gives the printed form a more practical shape by dealing expressly with issues that were often handled through rider clauses or typed amendments under earlier editions.
Many of the changes are not merely cosmetic. GENCON 1994 alters how freight may be earned, how cargo operations are handled, how demurrage becomes payable, how liens can be exercised, how bills of lading are signed, how brokerage is calculated, how strikes are treated, how war risks are managed, how ice affects loading and discharge, and how disputes are referred to arbitration. For that reason, the form should be read as a complete commercial framework rather than as a simple update of GENCON 1976.
Structure and Commercial Purpose of GENCON 1994
The form is arranged around the central stages of the voyage: description and employment of the ship, loading, carriage, discharge, freight, laytime, demurrage, liens, bills of lading, interruption risks, and dispute resolution. The printed clauses are supported by boxes in Part I where the parties insert the commercial particulars, including the parties, ship details, loading and discharging places, cargo, freight basis, laytime, demurrage, brokerage, cancelling date, and arbitration choice.
This box-and-clause structure is commercially useful because the clauses provide the legal machinery, while the boxes supply the fixture particulars. A poorly completed box can still create uncertainty, but the 1994 form is generally more precise than earlier versions in several important areas. It also reflects the modern assumption that GENCON fixtures are normally made on FIOST or similar terms, with cargo handling risk and cost largely placed on the charterer.
Clause 1: The Ship, Prior Commitments, and Deck Cargo
Clause 1 establishes the main voyage obligation. The named ship must proceed to the loading port or place stated in the charterparty, or as near as she may safely get and lie always afloat, and must then load the agreed cargo before proceeding to the nominated discharging port or place. GENCON 1994 retains this fundamental voyage charterparty structure but adds wording that the ship is to proceed as soon as her prior commitments have been completed.
This addition is important. Under general voyage charterparty principles, an expected readiness date may imply that the shipowner must start the approach voyage in time to reach the loading port by that date. GENCON 1994 softens that obligation by making the ship's approach dependent on the completion of earlier commitments. However, this protection should not be treated as unlimited. The phrase points most naturally to commitments already existing when the GENCON fixture is concluded, rather than commitments freely taken later by the shipowner.
The shipowner must still have an honest and reasonable basis for the expected readiness date inserted in the charterparty. The amended wording does not give the shipowner a licence to state an unrealistic expected readiness date or to manage prior employment carelessly. It simply recognises that a ship already committed to another service cannot physically begin the new approach voyage until that previous service has been completed.
Clause 1 also clarifies deck cargo. Where deck cargo shipment is agreed, it is carried at the charterer's risk and responsibility. This wording is stronger than a bare reference to risk alone, because it indicates that the charterer assumes responsibility for the consequences of agreed deck carriage, subject always to any mandatory cargo liability regime that may apply through the bill of lading or governing law.
Clause 2: Shipowners' Responsibility
GENCON 1994 leaves the shipowners' responsibility clause substantially intact. The shipowner is responsible for cargo loss, cargo damage, or delay only where the loss results from the personal want of due diligence of the shipowner or manager in making the ship seaworthy, properly manned, equipped, and supplied, or from the personal act or default of the shipowner or manager.
The clause is a strong protective provision for shipowners. It seeks to exclude responsibility for loss, damage, or delay arising from other causes, including the neglect or default of the master, crew, or other persons employed by the shipowner, unless the personal fault standard stated in the clause is met. Its practical effect is to narrow the charterer's claim against the shipowner when the cause lies in ordinary operational fault rather than in personal default at owner or management level.
The amendment dealing with deck cargo works together with clause 2. If agreed deck cargo is carried at the charterer's risk and responsibility, the charterer should expect a heavier burden if attempting to shift liability back to the shipowner. The revised structure aims to remove uncertainty that had previously arisen from shorter phrases such as “at charterer's risk”.
Clause 3: Deviation and Maritime Liberties
The deviation clause gives the ship liberty to call at ports in any order and for any purpose, to sail without pilots, to tow or assist ships in all situations, and to deviate for saving life or property. The clause protects traditional maritime liberties and gives the shipowner operational flexibility during the voyage.
Such liberties should still be exercised within the commercial purpose of the voyage. A printed liberty clause does not normally permit conduct that destroys the essential object of the carriage contract. The shipowner should therefore distinguish between reasonable maritime liberty and conduct that amounts to an unjustified departure from the contracted adventure.
Clause 4: Payment and Calculation of Freight
GENCON 1994 gives the parties clearer choices on freight than GENCON 1976. Freight may be agreed as prepaid or payable on delivery, and the consequences differ materially. The clause also states that freight is calculated on the intaken quantity unless the delivery-payment machinery allows the charterer to elect payment by delivered quantity.
Where freight is agreed as prepaid on shipment, it is deemed earned and non-returnable, ship and cargo lost or not lost. This shifts the freight risk to the charterer once the cargo has been shipped. If the cargo is later lost, or if the contract is brought to an end after shipment in circumstances that do not defeat the accrued right to freight, the shipowner remains entitled to the agreed freight.
The printed wording assumes that prepaid freight is payable on shipment. If the fixture provides for payment some days after bills of lading are signed, or at another point between shipment and delivery, the parties should amend the clause carefully. Otherwise, uncertainty may arise as to when the freight becomes earned and whether the non-returnable protection applies in full.
The clause also protects the shipowner from signing or endorsing bills of lading marked “freight prepaid” unless the freight has actually been paid. This is commercially important because a holder of a freight-prepaid bill may rely on that statement. Without such protection, the shipowner may lose practical recourse against cargo interests for unpaid freight.
Where freight is payable on delivery, the freight is not earned until the cargo is delivered. The charterer may also have the option, if properly declared before breaking bulk and if measurement can be reliably established, to pay on the delivered weight or quantity. This gives the charterer protection where cargo is short-delivered, naturally reduced, or otherwise not delivered in the quantity shipped.
Clause 5: Loading, Discharging, Dunnage, Gear, and Stevedore Damage
Clause 5 is one of the most commercially significant revisions. GENCON 1994 removes the old gross terms alternative and adopts a structure based on charterer responsibility for cargo operations. The cargo must be brought into the holds, loaded, stowed, trimmed, tallied, lashed, secured, taken from the holds, and discharged by the charterer free of risk, liability, and expense to the shipowner.
This wording moves the operational and financial burden of cargo handling firmly onto the charterer. It includes not only physical loading and discharge but also stowage-related activities such as lashing, securing, trimming, and tallying. In practice, the charterer must ensure that stevedores, terminal operators, and related contractors perform these tasks properly and without creating loss for the shipowner.
The dunnage provision also sits within clause 5. The charterer must provide and lay dunnage material required for proper stowage and protection of the cargo, while the shipowner allows the use of dunnage available on board. GENCON 1994 adds that the charterer is responsible for removing charterer dunnage after discharge and that time counts until dunnage has been removed.
Some uncertainty can arise over whether “charterer dunnage” means only material brought by the charterer or also material from the ship's stock that the charterer used. The commercial reading is that the charterer should not leave the ship delayed or encumbered by cargo-related dunnage after discharge. The clearer the rider clauses are on dunnage ownership, removal, disposal, cost, and time counting, the less scope there is for dispute.
The shipowner must provide free use of the ship's cargo gear and sufficient motive power unless the ship is gearless or the parties have agreed that the gear will not be used. The gear must be in good working order. If breakdown of cargo gear or motive power causes time loss, and the breakdown is not caused by stevedore negligence, the lost time does not count as laytime or time on demurrage on a pro rata basis by reference to the number of cranes or winches required at the time.
This pro rata machinery is practical where only part of the gear is affected. For example, if one crane out of several required cranes is out of order, only the corresponding proportion of time may be excluded. The clause therefore avoids the unfairness of treating a partial gear failure as a complete interruption where cargo work can continue, but at a reduced rate.
Where crew are provided as cranemen or winchmen, they are deemed to be stevedores for the relevant cargo work and are under the charterer's risk and responsibility, although they remain under the master's supervision. This is a notable allocation of risk. It means that, as between shipowner and charterer, the charterer may bear consequences that arise from cargo-handling work even where the physical operator is a crew member supplied by the shipowner.
Clause 5(c) introduces an express regime for stevedore damage. The charterer is responsible for damage beyond ordinary wear and tear caused by stevedores. The master must notify the charterer, the charterer's agent, and the stevedores as soon as reasonably possible, and must try to obtain written acknowledgement of liability from the stevedores. Failure to give the required notice may deprive the shipowner of the claim against the charterer.
Where stevedore damage affects seaworthiness or class, it must be repaired before the ship sails from the port where the damage was caused or found. Other stevedore damage must be repaired before completion of the voyage. The charterer bears additional expenses, and time lost is payable at the demurrage rate. The clause therefore converts stevedore damage into a direct operational and financial responsibility for the charterer.
Clause 6: Laytime and Notice of Readiness (NOR)
GENCON 1994 preserves the options for separate laytime for loading and discharging, or total laytime for both operations. Laytime is expressed in running days or hours, weather permitting, with Sundays and holidays excepted unless used, in which case time used counts. The central revisions concern the commencement of laytime and the effect of waiting for a berth.
At the loading port, notice of readiness must be given to the shippers named in the relevant box, or, if none are named, to the charterer or the charterer's agents. At the discharging port, notice must be given to the receivers or, if they are not known, to the charterer or the charterer's agents. This wording makes the identity of the notice recipient a practical issue in every fixture.
The 1994 form replaces the older time-lost waiting-for-berth wording with a more direct mechanism. If the loading or discharging berth is not available when the ship arrives at or off the port, the ship may give notice of readiness during ordinary office hours, whether in free pratique or not and whether customs cleared or not, provided the master warrants that the ship is in fact ready in all respects.
The phrase “at or off the port” is intended to cover situations where ships customarily wait outside the formal port limits because no berth is available. The ship must still be at a proper waiting place connected with the port operation, not merely somewhere at sea. Once the clause is triggered and a proper notice with the required warranty is given, laytime or time on demurrage counts as if the ship were in berth and ready.
The master's warranty of readiness is significant. It should not be treated as an empty formula. If the ship is later inspected and found not ready, time lost from discovery until renewed readiness does not count as laytime. The charterer should therefore act promptly where readiness is doubtful, while the master should not give the warranty unless it is honestly and carefully based.
Time used moving from the waiting place to the berth does not count as laytime. The clause does not use the same exclusion for time on demurrage, which may mean that shifting time can count once the ship is already on demurrage. This distinction can be important where the berth becomes available only after laytime has expired.
The final sentence states that time used before commencement of laytime shall count. This short provision has practical force in ports where cargo operations begin before the contractual laytime start. Where charterers use the ship early, the time used is credited against the laytime allowance.
Clause 7: Demurrage
The demurrage clause in GENCON 1994 creates a more precise payment regime than the older form. Demurrage at loading and discharging ports is payable by the charterer at the rate and in the manner stated in the relevant box, per day or pro rata for part of a day. It falls due day by day and is payable upon receipt of the shipowner's invoice.
This day-by-day accrual can assist shipowners where a ship remains on demurrage for a lengthy period. Instead of waiting until the end of the operation, the shipowner may invoice as demurrage accrues, thereby crystallising the charterer's payment obligation. The practical value of this clause depends on prompt invoicing and clear documentary support.
If demurrage is not paid, the shipowner must give the charterer 96 running hours' written notice to rectify the failure. If payment is still not made at the end of that period, and if the ship is in or at the loading port, the shipowner may terminate the charterparty and claim damages for losses caused by the termination.
This remedy is especially useful where the ship has arrived at the loading port, laytime has expired, demurrage is accruing, and cargo is still not available. It gives the shipowner a contractual exit route rather than forcing the shipowner to wait indefinitely while arguing whether the charterer's delay has become repudiatory. The right should nevertheless be exercised carefully, because delay or conduct consistent with continuing the charter may create arguments of waiver.
Clause 8: Lien on Cargo and Sub-Freights
The GENCON 1994 lien clause significantly expands the shipowner's security. The shipowner has a lien on cargo and on all sub-freights payable in respect of the cargo for freight, deadfreight, demurrage, damages claims, and all other amounts due under the charterparty, including recovery costs.
The lien on cargo is a possessory remedy. It depends on the shipowner's ability to retain control over the cargo until secured sums are paid or security is provided. The lien on sub-freights is different in nature. It operates as a claim against freight payable under a sub-contract or bill of lading structure, usually requiring timely notice before the sub-freight has been paid away.
The extension to damages claims is commercially powerful but can be difficult to apply. A claim for damages may be unliquidated and disputed when the lien is exercised. In practice, the shipowner may seek security for a reasonably calculated claim, but the amount must be approached with caution. Excessive or unsupported lien demands may expose the shipowner to counterclaims.
The 1994 form also removes the old cesser concept. Under earlier drafting, enlarged liens were often balanced by provisions that released the charterer from liability once cargo had been shipped and the lien was available. GENCON 1994 gives the shipowner broader lien rights without retaining that same printed cesser protection for the charterer.
Clause 9: Cancelling Clause
The cancelling clause gives the charterer the option to cancel if the ship is not ready to load, whether in berth or not, by the cancelling date stated in the charterparty. GENCON 1994 adds a more shipowner-friendly mechanism where the shipowner anticipates that the ship will not be ready by that date despite due diligence.
When the shipowner anticipates such delay, the shipowner must notify the charterer without delay, state the expected readiness date, and ask whether the charterer will cancel or agree to a new cancelling date. The charterer must declare the decision within 48 running hours after receiving the notice.
If the charterer does not cancel within that period, the charterparty is deemed amended so that the seventh day after the new readiness date becomes the new cancelling date. This mechanism reduces the risk of a wasted approach voyage. It forces an earlier commercial decision by the charterer once the shipowner has given the required delay notice.
The mechanism operates only once. If the ship is further delayed after the revised arrangement, the charterer again has the option to cancel under the ordinary cancelling machinery. The shipowner should therefore give the first notice accurately and only when the expected readiness date is reasonably assessed.
Clause 10: Bills of Lading (B/L) and the Charterer's Indemnity
GENCON 1994 modernises the bill of lading clause. Bills of lading are to be presented and signed in the CONGENBILL 1994 form, without prejudice to the charterparty. They may be signed by the master or by the shipowners' agents where written authority has been given and a copy is furnished to the charterer.
The reference to CONGENBILL 1994 matters because the master is not obliged to sign a bill of lading in a different form merely because it is presented by the charterer or shipper. The printed charterparty sets the agreed bill of lading form, and the charterer should ensure that cargo documents match the contractual requirements before shipment is completed.
The clause includes an express indemnity in favour of the shipowner. The charterer must indemnify the shipowner against consequences or liabilities arising from signing bills of lading as presented, to the extent that the terms or contents impose more onerous liabilities on the shipowner than those assumed under the charterparty.
This indemnity is especially relevant where the bill of lading exposes the shipowner to cargo claims, mandatory cargo rules, statements of quantity or condition, delivery obligations, or other liabilities broader than those owed to the charterer under the charterparty. The shipowner must still act carefully. The indemnity does not automatically protect careless signing, inaccurate clausing, or liabilities arising from causes independent of the presented bill terms.
Clause 11: Both-to-Blame Collision
The both-to-blame collision clause is new in GENCON 1994. It is designed for the situation where the carrying ship collides with another ship and cargo interests recover from the non-carrying ship, which then seeks contribution or recoupment from the carrying ship or her owners.
The clause requires cargo interests to indemnify the shipowner for certain collision-related liabilities connected with cargo claims paid or payable by the other ship and then recovered from the carrying ship. It also extends to fault involving ships or objects other than the two directly colliding ships. Its practical purpose is to preserve the intended cargo liability balance in jurisdictions where collision recovery mechanisms might otherwise shift cargo loss back to the carrying shipowner.
Clause 12: General Average (GA) and New Jason Clause
The general average clause in GENCON 1994 provides for adjustment in London unless another place is agreed in the relevant box. It refers to the York-Antwerp Rules 1994 and later modifications. The clause also states that cargo proprietors must pay the cargo's share of general average expenses even where some expenses have been necessitated by neglect or default of the shipowner's servants, subject to the responsibility regime in clause 2.
The selection of the place of adjustment can be commercially important. If London is retained, the adjustment follows the agreed London framework. If another place is chosen, the legal and practical consequences of adjustment may change. The arbitration clause may still govern disputes arising from the charterparty, so the parties should coordinate the general average box with the law and arbitration box.
GENCON 1994 also introduces a New Jason wording for situations where general average is to be adjusted according to U.S. law and practice. Its function is to secure cargo contribution where an accident, danger, damage, or disaster gives rise to general average expenditure, even where negligence is involved, provided the shipowner is not responsible for the cause or consequence by statute, contract, or otherwise.
Clause 13: Taxes and Dues
The taxes and dues clause is a new printed provision in GENCON 1994. It allocates dues, charges, and taxes by subject matter. The shipowner pays those customarily levied on the ship. The charterer pays those customarily levied on the cargo. Unless otherwise agreed in the relevant box, taxes levied on freight are for the charterer's account.
This allocation reflects practical voyage chartering logic. Charges attached to the ship remain for the shipowner, cargo-related fiscal burdens fall to the charterer, and freight taxes are shifted to the charterer unless the parties state otherwise. In charter chains, care is needed because the clause may apply only to taxes levied on freight under the immediate charter, depending on the wording and the facts.
Clause 14: Agency
The agency clause states that the shipowners appoint their own agent at both loading and discharging ports. The provision confirms the shipowner's right to control the appointment of port agents under the printed form, unless the parties agree different wording. This differs from many time charter structures where the charterer nominates agents because the ship is under the charterer's employment orders.
In practice, a port agent may perform tasks for both shipowner and charterer. The commercial label used in the fixture does not always decide whose agent the port agent is for every act. The real question is usually whether the relevant task concerned ship matters, cargo matters, berth arrangements, customs documents, freight collection, port disbursements, or cargo operations, and which party had responsibility for that task under the charterparty.
Clause 15: Brokerage
GENCON 1994 changes the brokerage clause in important ways. Brokerage commission is payable at the rate stated in the relevant box on freight, deadfreight, and demurrage earned. This is broader than a clause based only on freight and gives the broker an entitlement linked to additional earnings generated by non-loading, delay, or breach-related consequences within the fixture.
In case of non-execution, one-third of the brokerage on the estimated freight is payable to the broker as an indemnity for expenses and work. Unlike the earlier approach, responsibility for this indemnity is placed on the party responsible for the non-execution. This is a more targeted allocation than imposing the obligation automatically on the shipowner.
The broker's right to commission should be examined in light of the charterparty wording, any third-party rights legislation that may apply, and any separate brokerage agreement. The printed clause will normally be the starting point. Parties who intend a different commission basis, different payer, different timing, or different treatment of demurrage and deadfreight should state this expressly.
Clause 16: General Strike Clause
GENCON 1994 recasts the general strike clause. The earlier structure began with a broad mutual exception and then dealt separately with loading and discharging. The 1994 version places the loading and discharging strike mechanisms first and makes the residual exception subordinate to those express obligations.
The clause is now focused on strikes or lock-outs affecting or preventing the actual loading or actual discharging of the cargo. This wording narrows the clause. A strike at a supplier's inland plant, a transport contractor's facility, or a location not directly involved in the port cargo operation may fall outside the strike clause even if it affects cargo availability.
At the loading port, if a strike or lock-out affects or prevents actual loading when the ship is ready to proceed from her last port, during the approach voyage, or after arrival, the master or shipowner may ask the charterer to declare that laydays will be reckoned as if there were no strike. If the charterer does not give that written declaration within 24 hours, the shipowner may cancel. If part cargo has already been loaded, the shipowner must proceed with that cargo, with freight payable on the loaded quantity only and liberty to complete with other cargo for the shipowner's account.
At the discharging port, if a strike or lock-out affects or prevents actual discharge on or after arrival at or off the port and remains unsettled for 48 hours, the charterer has two options. The charterer may keep the ship waiting and pay half demurrage after expiry of discharge time until the strike ends, after which full demurrage is payable until completion of discharge. Alternatively, the charterer may order the ship to a safe port where she can safely discharge without risk of strike detention.
This is a significant change from the earlier approach under which half-demurrage could continue more broadly after a strike at the discharge port. GENCON 1994 expressly states that full demurrage resumes once the strike or lock-out terminates. The wording is therefore more favourable to the shipowner after the immediate strike period ends.
Clause 17: War Risks and VOYWAR 1993
GENCON 1994 replaces the older VOYWAR 1950 wording with VOYWAR 1993. This is one of the most important updates in the form. The revised clause expands the definition of war risks, identifies a wider group of persons who may rely on the clause, and introduces a reasonableness standard based on the judgement of the master and the shipowner.
For the purpose of the clause, “owners” includes not only registered shipowners but also bareboat charterers, disponent owners, managers, operators charged with management of the ship, and the master. This is commercially important in charter chains, because the party exposed to operational war risk may not be the registered owner.
The war risks definition includes actual or threatened war, acts of war, civil war, hostilities, revolution, rebellion, civil commotion, warlike operations, actual or reported mines, piracy, terrorism, hostility, malicious damage, and blockades, including selective blockades based on flag, ownership, cargo, crew, or other criteria. The breadth of the definition reflects the practical range of modern maritime security threats.
The triggering test is not absolute certainty. The clause operates where, in the reasonable judgement of the master or shipowner, the relevant risks may be dangerous or are likely to be or become dangerous to the ship, cargo, crew, or other persons on board. The judgement must be reasonable, not arbitrary, speculative, or made without proper consideration.
Before loading begins, if the chartered performance may expose the ship or persons on board to war risks, the shipowner may cancel or refuse to perform the affected part of the contract. If the charter provides a range of ports and the nominated port presents the war risk, the shipowner must first require the charterer to nominate another safe port within the range. Cancellation is available only if the charterer does not nominate a safe alternative within 48 hours.
After loading has begun and until discharge is completed, the shipowner is not required to continue loading, sign bills of lading for an exposed port, proceed through a dangerous canal or waterway, remain at a dangerous place, or continue a voyage that may expose the ship, cargo, crew, or other persons to war risks. The shipowner may request a safe discharge port, and if the charterer does not nominate one within 48 hours, the shipowner may discharge at a safe port of choice, including the loading port.
Where discharge takes place away from the loading port under the war risks clause, the shipowner is entitled to full freight as if the cargo had been carried to the contractual discharge port. If the extra distance exceeds 100 miles, additional freight is payable in proportion to the extra distance compared with the normal and customary route. The shipowner also has a lien on cargo for extra expenses and freight due under the clause.
Sub-clause 4 addresses an alternative route. If the normal and customary route may expose the ship to war risks but a longer route is available, the shipowner must notify the charterer that the longer route will be taken. If the total extra distance exceeds 100 miles, the shipowner is entitled to additional freight calculated by the same proportional method.
The liberty provisions are broad. The ship may comply with orders, directions, recommendations, or advice from relevant governments, bodies with power to compel compliance, war risk underwriters, United Nations Security Council resolutions, European Community directives, supranational bodies, and national laws enforcing such measures. The ship may also discharge contraband-risk cargo elsewhere, call to change crew or other persons on board where sanctions or internment are feared, and load substitute cargo for the shipowner's own benefit where cargo has not been loaded or has been discharged under the clause.
Actions taken under the war risks clause are not treated as deviation. They are treated as due fulfilment of the contract of carriage. This wording is designed to prevent a lawful security response from being recast as a breach of the voyage obligation.
Clause 18: General Ice Clause
The general ice clause in GENCON 1994 is largely carried forward from the previous form but with some significant adjustments. The most notable change is that the earlier exclusion for spring has been removed. This avoids the uncertainty of deciding what “spring” means at a particular port or in a particular hemisphere.
At the loading port, if the port is inaccessible by reason of ice when the ship is ready to proceed from the last port, during the approach voyage, on arrival, or if frost sets in after arrival, the master may leave without cargo for fear of being frozen in, and the charterparty becomes null and void. In commercial effect, this discharges both parties from further performance from that point, rather than treating the charterparty as if it never existed.
If loading has already begun and the master fears that the ship may be frozen in, the master may leave with cargo already on board. The shipowner may complete with other cargo for the shipowner's benefit and forward the charter cargo to destination at the ship's expense, against payment of freight on quantity delivered. Under GENCON 1994, the proviso is that no extra expenses are caused to the charterer.
Where there is more than one loading port and one or more ports are closed by ice, the master or shipowner may load part cargo at the open port and fill up elsewhere for the shipowner's account, or may declare the charterparty null and void unless the charterer agrees to load the full cargo at the open port. This protects the shipowner from being trapped by a multi-port loading programme that cannot be safely completed because of ice.
At the discharging port, if ice prevents the ship from reaching the destination, the charterer may keep the ship waiting until navigation reopens and pay demurrage, or may order the ship to a safe and immediately accessible port where she can discharge without risk of ice detention. The order must be given within 48 hours after the master or shipowner gives notice that the ship cannot reach the destination.
If ice danger arises during discharge and the master considers it advisable to leave for fear of being frozen in, the master may leave with remaining cargo on board and proceed to the nearest accessible port where discharge can safely take place. On delivery at the substitute port, the bill of lading conditions apply, and the ship receives the same freight as if discharge had taken place at the original destination. If the substituted port involves more than 100 nautical miles of additional distance, freight is increased proportionally.
The ice clause does not necessarily displace a safe port or safe berth obligation. Ice may make a port inaccessible or create a risk of freezing in, but separate issues of physical safety may still arise. A charterer who nominates a port affected by extraordinary ice danger may therefore face safe port arguments in addition to the printed ice clause machinery, depending on the wording and the facts.
Clause 19: Law and Arbitration
GENCON 1994 introduces a dedicated law and arbitration clause, something absent from GENCON 1976. The parties may select English law and London arbitration, U.S. maritime law and New York arbitration, or another place and applicable law stated in the arbitration box. If the box is not completed, English law and London arbitration apply by default.
The London option provides for arbitration in London and includes a small claims mechanism where the claimed amount does not exceed the figure stated in the relevant box. The New York option provides for arbitration under the Society of Maritime Arbitrators procedure, with a shortened procedure where the relevant financial threshold is completed. If no figure is supplied, the small claims or shortened procedure falls away, but the rest of the arbitration clause remains effective.
The wording refers broadly to disputes arising out of the charterparty. This wide formula is intended to capture disputes concerning performance, payment, breach, termination, validity, and related charterparty rights. It also assists incorporation into bills of lading where the CONGENBILL 1994 form is used, because that bill of lading expressly incorporates charterparty terms, including the law and arbitration clause.
Practical Drafting Lessons from GENCON 1994
GENCON 1994 is more complete than GENCON 1976, but it still requires careful completion and, where necessary, rider clauses. The parties should pay particular attention to the expected readiness date, prior commitments, cancelling date, freight timing, freight calculation basis, laytime type, demurrage rate and payment mechanics, identity of notice recipients, port agency arrangements, brokerage percentage, war risk routing, ice exposure, and arbitration selection.
The form is especially sensitive to the boxes. A clause may be well drafted, but its commercial result can become uncertain if the relevant box is blank, inconsistent, or incomplete. For example, freight clauses depend heavily on how Box 13 is filled; demurrage rights depend on Box 20; brokerage depends on Box 24; general average and arbitration depend on the relevant boxes. A fixture recap should therefore be checked carefully against the printed GENCON machinery before execution.
Charterers should recognise that GENCON 1994 places substantial operational responsibility on them, particularly for cargo handling, dunnage, stevedore damage, demurrage, freight taxes, and in many cases port-related costs. Shipowners should recognise that broader printed rights, such as liens, war risk liberties, termination for unpaid demurrage, and bill of lading indemnities, are strongest when exercised promptly, reasonably, and with clear evidence.
Conclusion
GENCON 1994 is not merely a revised printed form. It is a modernised voyage charterparty framework that reallocates risk across almost every stage of the adventure. It strengthens the shipowner's position in freight, demurrage, liens, bills of lading, war risks, and certain cargo-operation matters, while preserving the charterer's key commercial protections through cancelling rights, freight options, laytime structures, substitute port choices, and defined strike and ice procedures.
The form works best when the parties use it with precision. Each box should be completed consistently with the printed clauses, each operational responsibility should be understood before fixture, and any intended departure from the standard regime should be expressed clearly. Properly used, GENCON 1994 remains a practical and commercially robust voyage charterparty form for dry bulk and general cargo employment.