New York Produce Exchange Form (NYPE)

New York Produce Exchange Form (NYPE) is a Time Charter Party Form. Time Charterer is responsible for:

• employing the ship
• finding the cargo
• paying port, canal
• paying cargo handling
• accomplishing tank and hold cleaning
• paying bunker (fuel) costs

However, management of the ship remains at the responsibility of actual shipowner. Time charterer may sublet the ship in other words time charterer may charter out the ship on the voyage market. In that case, time charterer becomes the disponent owner. Although time charterer does not own the ship, time charterer is entitled to the benefits that are obtained from trading the ship during the period of the charter.

Time Charterer is the carrier and the Ship Master signs the Bills of Lading (B/L) on his behalf. Any claims for cargo damage or shortage must first be met by the time charterer. Time charterer may subsequently claim reimbursement from the actual shipowner (beneficial shipowner).

In time charter, regardless of the number of sub-charters (charter chains), the head charterer (first time charterer) is always responsible to the shipowner for the employment of the ship. Mostly used dry cargo time charter forms:

• New York Produce Exchange (NYPE)
• BALTIME

New York Produce Exchange form (NYPE) is produced by the Association Shipbrokers and Agents (ASBA) and is considered to be more biased in favor of the time charterer. On the other hand, BALTIME is produced by BIMCO and is considered to be more biased in favor of shipowners. GENTIME and LINERTIME charter-party forms are used less often.

—

What is a New York Produce Exchange NYPE form?

The New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form is a standardized charter party agreement used in the shipping industry, particularly for the dry bulk sector. A charter party is a contract between the shipowner and the charterer, outlining the terms and conditions for the hire of a vessel and transportation of goods or commodities.

The NYPE form, first published by the New York Produce Exchange in 1913, has undergone several revisions over the years, with the latest version being the NYPE 2015. This form provides a framework for negotiating the key elements of the agreement, such as the duration of the charter, hire rate, cargo details, laytime, demurrage, and other essential clauses.

The NYPE form is widely used and recognized in the maritime industry because of its flexibility and adaptability to different types of vessels and cargoes. It can be customized to cater to the specific requirements of the parties involved, making it a popular choice for various types of charter agreements, such as time charters, voyage charters, and trip charters.

 

Where can I find New York Produce Exchange NYPE form? NYPE 2015 Sample Copy

We kindly suggest that you visit the web page of BIMCO (Baltic and International Maritime Council) obtain the original New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) forms and documents. www.bimco.org

 

NYPE 46 Vs NYPE 93 Vs NYPE 2015

The New York Produce Exchange (NYPE) form is a standard charter party agreement used in the shipping industry. Over the years, it has undergone several revisions to address the evolving needs of the maritime sector. Three significant versions of the NYPE form are the NYPE 1946, NYPE 1993, and NYPE 2015. Here’s a brief comparison of these three versions:

1. NYPE 1946: The NYPE 1946 is the original version of the NYPE form, which was first published in 1913 and revised in 1946. It has been widely used in the shipping industry for several decades and provides a basic framework for charter agreements. However, some of its clauses have become outdated and may not adequately address current industry practices and legal requirements.
2. NYPE 1993: The NYPE 1993 was introduced to modernize the NYPE 1946 form and address some of its shortcomings. It included updated provisions and clauses that reflected contemporary maritime practices, such as bunker adjustment clauses, payment terms, and off-hire provisions. The NYPE 1993 also clarified the responsibilities of both the shipowner and the charterer, making the agreement more balanced.
3. NYPE 2015: The NYPE 2015 is the latest version of the NYPE form, jointly published by the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO), the Association of Shipbrokers and Agents (ASBA), and the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF). This version aims to further refine the agreement and provide a more comprehensive framework for charter parties. It includes more detailed provisions for maintenance and repairs, off-hire events, payment of hire and deductions, bunker fuel usage and supply, and other critical aspects of the charter. The NYPE 2015 also addresses issues such as anti-corruption practices, sanctions, and piracy, making it more in line with current industry standards and regulations.

Each version of the NYPE form builds upon the previous one, with the NYPE 2015 being the most comprehensive and up-to-date version. Shipowners and charterers should consider using the latest version to ensure that their charter party agreements are in line with modern maritime practices and legal requirements. However, it is essential to note that parties can still choose to use older versions, such as NYPE 1946 or NYPE 1993, if they prefer, as long as they make any necessary adjustments and include additional clauses to address current industry standards.

What is the Off-Hire Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The off-hire clause in the NYPE charter party forms outlines the conditions under which the vessel is considered off-hire and not earning hire from the charterer. Here’s an overview of the off-hire clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: In the NYPE 1946 form, the off-hire clause can be found in Clause 15. This clause states that the vessel is off-hire when it is “not in every way fit for service” or when it is undergoing repairs, cleaning, or painting that render the vessel unfit for service. The clause also provides that the vessel is off-hire during any time lost due to the vessel’s crew going on strike. However, the NYPE 46 form does not provide a comprehensive list of off-hire events, leaving room for interpretation and potential disputes.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes an updated off-hire clause in Clause 15, which is more detailed and comprehensive than the NYPE 46 form. The clause lists various events that would put the vessel off-hire, such as breakdowns, deficiencies of the crew or officers, dry-docking for the purpose of examination or painting the bottom, or detention by the average adjusters. Additionally, it includes a “sweep-up” provision stating that the vessel is off-hire when it is “not in every way fit for service,” similar to the NYPE 46 form.
3. NYPE 2015: The off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015 form is found in Clause 20. This clause provides a more detailed and comprehensive list of off-hire events compared to the NYPE 93 form, offering greater clarity on the conditions that render the vessel off-hire. Events listed include detention by port state control, arrest of the vessel, or breakdowns of various onboard machinery and equipment. The clause also specifies that the vessel is off-hire during any time lost due to non-compliance with the International Safety Management (ISM) Code or the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code.

While the off-hire clauses in the NYPE forms provide a basis for determining when a vessel is off-hire, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize these clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes specifying any additional off-hire events or conditions and providing clear guidance on the calculation and treatment of off-hire periods, to minimize the potential for disputes and ensure a smooth chartering process.

 

 

What is the Off-hire Clause in the NYPE 46?

The off-hire clause in the NYPE 1946 form is a provision in the charter party agreement that outlines the circumstances under which a vessel is considered off-hire, meaning the charterer is not required to pay hire for the vessel during that period. In the NYPE 1946 form, the off-hire clause is found in Clause 15, which states:

“That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in or breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra fuel consumed in consequence thereof, and all extra expenses shall be deducted from the hire.”

In simpler terms, the off-hire clause in the NYPE 1946 form states that if the vessel is unable to operate fully due to various reasons, such as lack of crew or stores, mechanical breakdowns, grounding, detention, or drydocking, the charterer is not obliged to pay hire for the duration of the lost time. Additionally, if the vessel’s speed is reduced due to defects or breakdowns, the lost time, extra fuel costs, and other extra expenses will be deducted from the hire.

However, it is essential to note that the NYPE 1946 form’s off-hire clause may not adequately address all the circumstances that may arise in modern shipping. For this reason, parties often customize the off-hire clause or use updated versions of the NYPE form, such as the NYPE 1993 or NYPE 2015, which contain more comprehensive off-hire provisions.

 

What is the off-hire clause in the NYPE 93?

The off-hire clause in the NYPE 1993 form is a provision in the charter party agreement that outlines the circumstances under which a vessel is considered off-hire, meaning the charterer is not required to pay hire for the vessel during that period. In the NYPE 1993 form, the off-hire clause is found in Clause 15, which states:

“That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in or breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra fuel consumed in consequence thereof, and all extra expenses shall be deducted from the hire.”

This clause is similar to the one found in the NYPE 1946 form, with some modifications to better address modern shipping practices. The off-hire clause in the NYPE 1993 form states that if the vessel is unable to operate fully due to various reasons, such as lack of crew or stores, mechanical breakdowns, grounding, detention, or drydocking, the charterer is not obliged to pay hire for the duration of the lost time. Additionally, if the vessel’s speed is reduced due to defects or breakdowns, the lost time, extra fuel costs, and other extra expenses will be deducted from the hire.

Despite these updates, the NYPE 1993 form’s off-hire clause may still need further customization to address specific circumstances or legal requirements in individual charter agreements. The NYPE 2015 form offers a more comprehensive and up-to-date off-hire clause, which can be used as an alternative to the NYPE 1993 form.

 

 

What is the off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015?

The off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015 form is a provision in the charter party agreement that outlines the circumstances under which a vessel is considered off-hire, meaning the charterer is not required to pay hire for the vessel during that period. In the NYPE 2015 form, the off-hire clause is found in Clause 20, which states:

(a) “Off-hire – Loss of Time: The Vessel shall be off-hire during any period of time when, due to any of the following reasons, the Vessel is unable to comply with any of the Charterer’s orders or any of the Charterer’s instructions in accordance with this Charter Party:

(i) Deficiency of Master, officers or ratings; (ii) Deficiency of bunkers or stores; (iii) Fire; (iv) Breakdown of or damage to the Vessel’s hull, machinery, equipment or lines; (v) Grounding; (vi) Detention or arrest of the Vessel; (vii) Average accidents to the Vessel or cargo; (viii) Any other cause preventing the full working of the Vessel.”

(b) “Off-hire – Other Occurrences: The Vessel shall also be off-hire during any period of time when, due to any other reason, the Vessel is unable to comply with any of the Charterer’s orders or any of the Charterer’s instructions in accordance with this Charter Party, provided that the reason for the Vessel’s inability is not a risk for which the Charterer is responsible under this Charter Party.”

The off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015 form states that if the vessel is unable to comply with the charterer’s orders or instructions due to various reasons, such as deficiency of crew, bunkers or stores, fire, breakdowns, grounding, detention or arrest, average accidents, or any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the charterer is not obliged to pay hire for the duration of the lost time. Additionally, if the vessel is unable to comply with the charterer’s orders for any other reason not caused by the charterer, the vessel will also be considered off-hire.

Compared to the NYPE 1946 and NYPE 1993 forms, the NYPE 2015 off-hire clause provides a more comprehensive and up-to-date framework, reflecting modern shipping practices and legal requirements. However, parties can still customize the off-hire clause to address specific circumstances or concerns in their individual charter agreements.

 

What are the changes and differences in new NYPE Form 2015?

The NYPE 2015 form is the latest version of the New York Produce Exchange charter party agreement, which builds upon the previous versions (NYPE 1946 and NYPE 1993) and aims to address the evolving needs of the shipping industry. Some key changes and differences in the NYPE 2015 form compared to its predecessors are:

1. Maintenance and Repairs (Clause 9): NYPE 2015 provides more clarity on the allocation of responsibilities for maintenance and repairs between the shipowner and the charterer, such as specifying that the charterer is responsible for the cost of damage caused by stevedores or other third parties appointed by the charterer.
2. Bunkers (Clause 12): The NYPE 2015 form introduces a new clause addressing bunkers, including provisions on the quality and quantity of bunkers, as well as bunker adjustment factor (BAF) clauses for fluctuating fuel prices. It also covers the process for bunkering at the beginning and end of the charter and the procedures for handling bunker-related disputes.
3. Off-hire Clause (Clause 20): The off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015 form is more detailed and comprehensive than in previous versions, providing greater clarity on the events that lead to the vessel being considered off-hire and the allocation of responsibilities between the parties.
4. Anti-Corruption (Clause 24): The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause addressing anti-corruption practices, which requires both parties to comply with applicable laws and regulations and ensures that no bribes or other corrupt practices are involved during the charter period.
5. Sanctions (Clause 29): The NYPE 2015 introduces a new sanctions clause, requiring both parties to comply with applicable sanctions laws and regulations. It also includes provisions for termination of the charter party in case of a breach of sanctions.
6. War Risks (Clause 31): The NYPE 2015 form expands on the war risks provisions, clarifying the responsibilities of the parties in the event of war or hostilities and providing for the termination of the charter party under certain circumstances.
7. Piracy (Clause 32): A new clause addressing piracy has been added to the NYPE 2015 form, which outlines the responsibilities of both parties in the event of a pirate attack and provides guidelines for the use of armed guards on board the vessel.
8. Performance Claims (Clause 36): The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause on performance claims, establishing a time limit for notifying claims related to the vessel’s performance, speed, and consumption.
9. Entire Agreement (Clause 47): The NYPE 2015 form adds an entire agreement clause, which clarifies that the charter party represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior negotiations or agreements.
10. Ballast Water Management (Clause 17): The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause addressing ballast water management, in line with the International Maritime Organization (IMO) regulations. This clause outlines the responsibility of the shipowner to ensure that the vessel complies with the relevant ballast water management regulations and holds the necessary certificates.
11. ISPS Code Compliance (Clause 18): The NYPE 2015 form clarifies the shipowner’s responsibility to ensure that the vessel complies with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code. This includes maintaining a valid International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) and ensuring that the vessel meets the security requirements of the charterer and the ports visited.
12. Insurance (Clause 19): The insurance clause in the NYPE 2015 form provides more explicit guidance on the shipowner’s responsibility for insuring the vessel. It also outlines the responsibilities of both parties in the event of a casualty or general average situation.
13. Liens (Clause 25): The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause regarding liens, which outlines the rights of the shipowner and the charterer to place liens on cargo, sub-hires, or other assets in case of non-payment or disputes.
14. Dispute Resolution (Clause 45): The NYPE 2015 form provides clearer guidance on the process for resolving disputes between the parties. It outlines the options for mediation and arbitration, specifying the applicable rules, venue, and governing law for resolving disputes.
15. Electronic Bills of Lading (Clause 46): The NYPE 2015 form acknowledges the growing use of electronic bills of lading in the shipping industry and provides provisions for their use in the charter party agreement.

 

As the shipping industry continues to evolve and adapt to new technologies, regulations, and market conditions, the NYPE 2015 form serves as a solid foundation for charter party agreements. However, parties should remain vigilant and proactive in addressing emerging trends and challenges. Some of these trends and challenges include:

16. Environmental Regulations: With increasing focus on environmental protection and sustainability, the shipping industry is subject to stricter regulations related to emissions, waste disposal, and use of eco-friendly technologies. Parties should ensure that their charter party agreements comply with the latest environmental regulations, such as the IMO 2020 sulfur cap and other regional or international requirements.
17. Cybersecurity: The growing reliance on digital technologies in the shipping industry makes vessels more vulnerable to cyber-attacks and security breaches. Parties should consider including provisions in their charter party agreements that address cybersecurity responsibilities, risk management, and incident response.
18. Digitalization and Automation: The shipping industry is embracing digitalization and automation to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. This includes the use of blockchain for documentation, remote monitoring and diagnostics, and autonomous vessel operations. Parties should consider how these advancements may impact their charter party agreements and include appropriate clauses to address these changes.
19. Alternative Fuels and Energy Efficiency: As the industry moves towards decarbonization, there is an increasing focus on alternative fuels such as liquefied natural gas (LNG), biofuels, hydrogen, and ammonia. Parties should consider the implications of using alternative fuels in their charter party agreements, addressing issues such as fuel compatibility, bunkering procedures, and potential technical challenges.
20. Geopolitical Risks: The shipping industry is often affected by geopolitical risks, such as trade wars, regional conflicts, and sanctions. Parties should closely monitor these risks and consider including appropriate clauses in their charter party agreements to address potential disruptions or changes in trading patterns.

The NYPE 2015 form provides a robust and comprehensive framework for charter party agreements in the modern shipping industry. However, parties should remain informed about emerging trends, challenges, and regulations and adapt their agreements accordingly. By staying up-to-date and customizing the NYPE 2015 form to address specific needs and circumstances, parties can ensure that their charter party agreements remain relevant, legally compliant, and effective in managing the risks and opportunities in the ever-evolving maritime sector.

 

Which version of NYPE is the most used and tried?

The NYPE 1993 form was the most widely used and tried version of the New York Produce Exchange charter party agreement in the shipping industry. This version provided several improvements over the NYPE 1946 form and had been adopted by many shipping companies and charterers as a standard.

However, it is important to note that the NYPE 2015 form has since been introduced to address the evolving needs of the shipping industry and provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date framework for charter party agreements. As the shipping sector continues to adapt to new technologies, regulations, and market conditions, it is possible that the NYPE 2015 form will gain wider acceptance and eventually surpass the NYPE 1993 form in terms of usage.

Ultimately, the choice of which NYPE form to use will depend on the preferences and requirements of the parties involved in the charter party agreement. It is essential to consider the specific circumstances of each case and tailor the chosen NYPE form accordingly to ensure a legally compliant and effective agreement that addresses the relevant risks and opportunities.

 

What are the advantages of NYPE 2015 over NYPE 93?

The NYPE 2015 form offers several advantages over the NYPE 1993 form, addressing the evolving needs of the shipping industry and providing a more comprehensive and up-to-date framework for charter party agreements. Key advantages of the NYPE 2015 form over the NYPE 1993 form include:

1. Clarity on Responsibilities: The NYPE 2015 form provides greater clarity on the allocation of responsibilities for maintenance, repairs, and other operational aspects between the shipowner and the charterer, reducing the potential for disputes.
2. Bunkers: The NYPE 2015 form introduces a new clause on bunkers, covering the quality and quantity of bunkers, bunker adjustment factor (BAF) clauses, and the process for bunkering at the beginning and end of the charter. This provides a clearer framework for handling bunker-related issues and disputes.
3. Off-hire Clause: The off-hire clause in the NYPE 2015 form is more detailed and comprehensive than in the NYPE 1993 form, offering greater clarity on the events leading to the vessel being considered off-hire and the allocation of responsibilities between the parties.
4. Anti-Corruption: The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause addressing anti-corruption practices, ensuring that both parties comply with applicable laws and regulations and that no bribes or other corrupt practices are involved during the charter period.
5. Sanctions: The NYPE 2015 form introduces a new sanctions clause, requiring both parties to comply with applicable sanctions laws and regulations and providing for termination of the charter party in case of a breach of sanctions.
6. War Risks and Piracy: The NYPE 2015 form expands on the war risks provisions and introduces a new piracy clause, outlining the responsibilities of both parties in the event of war, hostilities, or pirate attacks, and providing guidelines for the use of armed guards on board the vessel.
7. Performance Claims: The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause on performance claims, establishing a time limit for notifying claims related to the vessel’s performance, speed, and consumption, which promotes timely resolution of such issues.
8. Environmental Regulations and Ballast Water Management: The NYPE 2015 form incorporates clauses addressing environmental regulations and ballast water management, ensuring that the vessel complies with the latest international and regional requirements.
9. Dispute Resolution: The NYPE 2015 form offers clearer guidance on the process for resolving disputes between the parties, including options for mediation and arbitration, as well as specifying the applicable rules, venue, and governing law.
10. Electronic Bills of Lading: The NYPE 2015 form acknowledges the growing use of electronic bills of lading in the shipping industry and provides provisions for their use in the charter party agreement.

11. ISPS Code Compliance: The NYPE 2015 form clarifies the shipowner’s responsibility to ensure that the vessel complies with the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, including maintaining a valid International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) and meeting the security requirements of the charterer and the ports visited.
12. Insurance: The insurance clause in the NYPE 2015 form provides more explicit guidance on the shipowner’s responsibility for insuring the vessel and outlines the responsibilities of both parties in the event of a casualty or general average situation.
13. Liens: The NYPE 2015 form includes a new clause regarding liens, outlining the rights of the shipowner and the charterer to place liens on cargo, sub-hires, or other assets in case of non-payment or disputes.
14. Entire Agreement: The NYPE 2015 form adds an entire agreement clause, which clarifies that the charter party represents the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes any prior negotiations or agreements. This can help avoid misunderstandings and disputes related to previous arrangements or communications.

The NYPE 2015 form’s comprehensive and up-to-date provisions make it a more suitable option for modern charter party agreements, addressing the evolving needs and requirements of the shipping industry. Parties entering into a charter party agreement should consider using the NYPE 2015 form as a starting point and customizing it to suit their specific needs and circumstances. By doing so, they can benefit from the enhanced clarity, legal compliance, and risk management provided by the NYPE 2015 form, while also ensuring that their agreement is tailored to their unique requirements.

 

What is the meaning of NYPE in shipping terms?

NYPE stands for New York Produce Exchange, which is a reference to a specific set of charter party agreements used in the shipping industry. A charter party is a contract between the shipowner and the charterer, outlining the terms and conditions for the hire and use of a vessel for the transportation of cargo.

The New York Produce Exchange was a commodities exchange based in New York City, which historically facilitated trading in various commodities, including shipping contracts. Over time, the NYPE form became a widely-used standard for charter party agreements in the shipping industry.

The NYPE forms are known for their time charter agreements, which are contracts where the charterer hires a vessel for a specific period. The shipowner provides the vessel, crew, and necessary maintenance, while the charterer pays for the fuel, port charges, and other operational expenses. The NYPE forms, including NYPE 1946, NYPE 1993, and NYPE 2015, have evolved over time to address the changing needs and requirements of the shipping industry. Each version includes clauses and provisions that cover various aspects of the charter party agreement, such as hire payment, vessel performance, off-hire, insurance, and dispute resolution, among others.

 

What is the Cancellation Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The cancellation clause in the NYPE charter party forms addresses the charterer’s right to cancel the charter agreement if the vessel is not delivered by a specific date, known as the cancelling date. Here’s an overview of the cancellation clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: The cancellation clause in the NYPE 1946 form is typically found in the Additional Clauses section or added as a rider clause. It is not a standardized clause in this form, so parties often customize it to suit their specific requirements. A typical cancellation clause in the NYPE 46 form would give the charterer the right to cancel the charter if the vessel is not delivered by the cancelling date, with any prepaid hire to be returned without interest.
2. NYPE 93: The cancellation clause in the NYPE 1993 form can be found in Clause 54. This clause states that if the vessel is not delivered by the cancelling date, the charterer has the option to cancel the charter party. If the charterer chooses to cancel, any advances on hire and any guarantee furnished by the charterer should be returned promptly without interest. This clause also provides that the charterer’s right to cancel is without prejudice to any claim they may have for damages or otherwise due to the non-performance of the charter party.
3. NYPE 2015: The cancellation clause in the NYPE 2015 form can be found in Clause 9. This clause states that if the vessel is not delivered by the cancelling date, the charterer has the option to cancel the charter party. If the charterer cancels the agreement, any advances on hire and any guarantee furnished by the charterer should be returned promptly without interest. The clause further specifies that the charterer’s right to cancel is without prejudice to any claim for damages or otherwise due to the non-performance of the charter party.

It is essential to note that parties can negotiate and customize the cancellation clauses in each of the NYPE forms to suit their specific needs and circumstances. The cancelling date, notice period, and other terms related to the cancellation clause can be tailored to reflect the agreement between the shipowner and the charterer.

 

What is the Ship Performance Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The ship performance clause in the NYPE charter party forms addresses the speed, consumption, and performance guarantees provided by the shipowner for the chartered vessel. Here’s an overview of the ship performance clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: The NYPE 1946 form does not have a standardized ship performance clause. The speed and consumption guarantees are usually provided by the shipowner in the description of the vessel, which is found in the main body of the charter party. Any performance-related provisions or guarantees, including speed and consumption, are typically included in the Additional Clauses section or added as rider clauses. Parties often customize these clauses to suit their specific requirements.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes Clause 33, which addresses the ship’s performance. This clause requires the shipowner to use their best endeavors to maintain the vessel’s efficiency in terms of speed and fuel consumption. However, this clause does not provide specific performance guarantees. Instead, the performance guarantees, such as the speed and consumption figures, are usually provided by the shipowner in the description of the vessel, which is found in the main body of the charter party.
3. NYPE 2015: The NYPE 2015 form includes Clause 29, which is the ship performance clause. This clause specifies that the shipowner warrants that the vessel will, throughout the charter period, maintain the speed and consumption figures provided in the description of the vessel, subject to certain allowances and conditions. The clause also sets a time limit for notifying performance claims, requiring the charterer to notify the shipowner in writing within 30 days after the end of each voyage, providing details of any claim related to the vessel’s performance, speed, or consumption.

While the NYPE forms provide a framework for addressing ship performance, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize the performance clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes agreeing on the speed and consumption guarantees, allowances for weather and other factors, and any other performance-related terms that may be relevant to the charter party agreement.

 

 

What is the Withdrawal Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The withdrawal clause in the NYPE charter party forms sets out the shipowner’s right to withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s service in specific circumstances, usually due to non-payment of hire. Here’s an overview of the withdrawal clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: In the NYPE 1946 form, the withdrawal clause can be found in Clause 5. This clause states that the shipowner has the right to withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s service if the payment of hire is not received by the shipowner within a specified grace period, typically 72 hours. The clause further specifies that the withdrawal of the vessel from the charterer’s service will not prejudice the shipowner’s claim for any unpaid hire or damages.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes an updated withdrawal clause in Clause 31. This clause states that if the hire is not received by the shipowner within the agreed grace period, the shipowner has the option to withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s service. The clause also provides that, before exercising their right to withdraw, the shipowner must provide written notice to the charterer, specifying the amount of hire due and the date by which it must be paid. Similar to the NYPE 46 form, the withdrawal of the vessel does not prejudice the shipowner’s claim for any unpaid hire or damages.
3. NYPE 2015: The withdrawal clause in the NYPE 2015 form is found in Clause 11. This clause is similar to the NYPE 93 form, stating that if the hire is not received by the shipowner within the agreed grace period, the shipowner has the option to withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s service. The shipowner must provide written notice to the charterer, specifying the amount of hire due and the date by which it must be paid. The NYPE 2015 form also includes a provision allowing the parties to agree on an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in case of withdrawal, such as mediation or arbitration.

While the withdrawal clauses in the NYPE forms provide a basis for the shipowner’s right to withdraw the vessel from the charterer’s service, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize these clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes specifying the grace period for payment of hire, any notice requirements, and any other terms related to the withdrawal of the vessel.

 

 

What is the Bunker Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The bunker clause in the NYPE charter party forms addresses the responsibilities of the shipowner and the charterer regarding the vessel’s bunker (fuel) consumption, supply, and costs. Here’s an overview of the bunker clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: In the NYPE 1946 form, there is no standardized bunker clause. Instead, the parties typically include bunker-related provisions in the Additional Clauses section or add them as rider clauses. These provisions often address the responsibility of the charterer to supply and pay for bunkers, the shipowner’s responsibility to provide the vessel with sufficient bunkers upon delivery, and the calculation and settlement of bunker quantities and costs upon redelivery of the vessel.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes a bunker clause in Clause 46. This clause outlines the charterer’s responsibility to provide and pay for all bunkers consumed during the charter period. It also states that the shipowner must deliver the vessel with sufficient bunkers on board, and the charterer must redeliver the vessel with a similar amount of bunkers, as agreed in the charter party. The clause specifies that any difference in the bunker quantity upon delivery and redelivery should be settled between the parties at the prevailing market price.
3. NYPE 2015: The NYPE 2015 form includes a bunker clause in Clause 27. This clause, like the NYPE 93 form, outlines the charterer’s responsibility to provide and pay for all bunkers consumed during the charter period. The shipowner must deliver the vessel with sufficient bunkers, and the charterer must redeliver the vessel with a similar amount of bunkers, as agreed in the charter party. The clause also provides more detailed guidance on the measurement and calculation of bunker quantities, and the settlement of any differences in the bunker quantity upon delivery and redelivery, based on the prevailing market price.

While the NYPE forms provide a framework for addressing bunker-related responsibilities, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize the bunker clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes specifying the agreed bunker quantities and costs, the quality and grade of bunkers, and any other bunker-related terms that may be relevant to the charter party agreement.

 

Case Study: Net Loss Of Time Under NYPE Off-Hire Clause

Minerva Navigation Inc v. Oceana Shipping AG (M/V Athena) (2012)

The legal dispute in question originated from the vessel’s failure to promptly proceed to her designated discharge port upon the orders of the charterers. The charterers argued that the vessel was off-hire for the duration of time she spent drifting, instead of heading towards the discharge port. A complication with the bills of lading meant that even if the vessel had immediately followed the charterers’ instructions and proceeded to port, she would not have been able to begin discharging any earlier. The owners countered this by asserting that no net loss of time had occurred in the overall performance of the charter service, and therefore, the vessel remained on-hire during the disputed period. The charterers maintained that the test ought to be whether any time loss occurred during the performance of the services immediately required of the vessel, namely, proceeding to the discharge port. The Commercial Court allowed the owners’ appeal from the arbitration award and determined that the appropriate test under clause 15 NYPE 1946 was whether there had been a net loss of time in the charter service as a whole. In light of the facts, this provided the owners with a defense against the claim.

The Pertinent Background

Minerva Navigation, as the owners, chartered the vessel to Oceana Shipping AG, who in turn sub-chartered it to Transatlantica Commodities SA, as the charterers. With the exception of the hire rate, the charterparty and sub-charterparty were virtually identical, with both being based on the NYPE 1946 terms. The relevant excerpt from clause 15 of the off-hire provision reads as follows:

‘…in the event of loss of time from … default of master … or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost…’

The vessel was loaded with a cargo of wheat bound for Syria, and the bills of lading indicated discharge ports in Syria. Unfortunately, the cargo was rejected upon arrival. The charterers then directed that the goods be transported to a replacement port in Libya (Benghazi). As per the charterparties, the change in the discharge port necessitated the return of the original bills of lading in order for them to be reissued. However, this process took a while to resolve, owing to an issue with the initial bills. In the interim, the vessel left Syria and entered international waters outside of Libya.

On 19 January 2010, the charterers instructed the vessel to anchor in the port of Benghazi while awaiting further directives prior to berthing. Due to the bill of lading predicament, the vessel instead drifted for a period (the “drifting period”) about 50 miles from Libya’s shore. The drifting continued until 30 January, when the bill of lading problem was resolved, allowing the vessel to proceed to port as ordered. The vessel finally docked on 3 February, and thereafter began discharging the cargo.

Arbitration Award

The decision made by the arbitration panel was that during the drifting period, the vessel’s alleged off-hire status was put forth to the higher-ups in the charterparty hierarchy and then referred to arbitration. The arbitrators concluded that the vessel’s failure to heed the order to proceed to port on the 19th of January was a “default of master” as stipulated in clause 15. This resulted in a loss of time in performing the service immediately required of the vessel. The tribunal referred to the Berge Sund [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 453 and deemed this loss of time sufficient to warrant the off-hire claim. Despite the fact that the same amount of time would have been lost due to other reasons, such as the bills of lading issue, even if the vessel had directly proceeded to Benghazi, the arbitrators remained steadfast in their opinion that the vessel was off-hire for the entire drifting period. The owners of the vessel lodged an appeal.

Commercial Court Decision

The subject matter in question pertains to the decision of the Commercial Court. The crux of the appeal concerned whether the Vessel was considered off-hire under clause 15 of the NYPE charterparty (and the present Charterparty) for a specific period, merely because the Vessel was not efficient for the services required during that period, or whether the Charterers had to additionally demonstrate a net loss of time as a result.

Mr Justice Walker identified two conditions for clause 15 to be activated: firstly, that a factor impedes the full operation of the vessel (i.e. its ability to perform the service required immediately); and secondly, that the particular factor falls under the description outlined in clause 15.

If both requirements are met, clause 15 comes into effect. However, this alone does not guarantee the success of an off-hire claim. The court must then evaluate the wording of the clause against the facts to determine the intended consequences. Mr Justice Walker drew an important distinction here between clause engagement and the outcomes that result from its application.

In this instance, he concluded that the conditions for clause 15 had been satisfied and therefore, clause 15 had been activated. The crucial issue then became whether “time thereby lost” referred to a period where, although the charterers could demonstrate that the required service had been delayed due to a prescribed cause, they could not prove that there had been a net loss of time in carrying out the chartered service overall.

The judge determined that the ordinary meaning of the term “time lost thereby” necessitated a net loss of time in the performance of the chartered service overall. He believed that there was good reason to suspend payment of hire only to the extent that there had been a loss of time overall; otherwise, the charterers would benefit unfairly. He did not find any evidence in the pertinent authorities to contradict this view. In particular, he distinguished the Berge Sund case on the grounds that, in that instance, the off-hire clause was not activated since the vessel was able to perform the service required immediately, which was the cleaning of the hold.

Given the arbitrators’ finding of fact that the bill of lading issue would have delayed discharge in any event, the judge concluded that there had been no loss of time in the overall context of the chartered service. As a result, the activation of clause 15 due to the master’s failure to proceed to port had no impact in terms of “time thereby lost,” and the judge granted the owners’ appeal.

Remark

The court’s ruling in this case signifies its willingness to uphold “net loss of time” provisions, such as clause 15 of the NYPE 1946 form. The court has approved the reasoning of the Wilford on Time Charters authors, who stipulate that charterers must establish not only a “loss of a period of service,” but also a simultaneous “delay to the progress of the adventure.”

 

What is the Bill of Lading Clause of the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015?

The bill of lading clause in the NYPE charter party forms addresses the responsibilities of the shipowner and the charterer regarding the issuance, signing, and terms of the bills of lading for cargo carried by the chartered vessel. Here’s an overview of the bill of lading clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: In the NYPE 1946 form, the bill of lading clause can be found in Clause 8. This clause states that the captain, or the shipowner’s agents, shall sign bills of lading as presented by the charterer, provided that the terms and conditions of the bills of lading do not conflict with the terms and conditions of the charter party. The clause does not provide detailed guidance on the content or form of the bills of lading.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes an updated bill of lading clause in Clause 9. This clause states that the charterer has the right to demand that the shipowner, the master, or the shipowner’s agents sign bills of lading as presented by the charterer, so long as they do not contain any terms or conditions that are inconsistent with the charter party. The clause also specifies that the shipowner is responsible for ensuring that the bills of lading are properly completed and signed.
3. NYPE 2015: The NYPE 2015 form includes a bill of lading clause in Clause 14. This clause, like the NYPE 93 form, states that the charterer has the right to demand that the shipowner, the master, or the shipowner’s agents sign bills of lading as presented by the charterer, provided they do not contain any terms or conditions that are inconsistent with the charter party. The clause further specifies that the charterer indemnifies the shipowner against any consequences or liabilities arising from the issuance of bills of lading with terms or conditions that are inconsistent with the charter party or any applicable laws or regulations.

While the NYPE forms provide a framework for addressing bill of lading-related responsibilities, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize the bill of lading clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes specifying the form and content of the bills of lading, the procedures for signing and issuing them, and any other terms related to the carriage of cargo under the charter party agreement.

 

 

Ship Hire Payment differences in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015

The ship hire payment clause in the NYPE charter party forms addresses the charterer’s responsibility to pay hire for the use of the chartered vessel, along with the payment terms and conditions. Here’s an overview of the ship hire payment clauses in the NYPE 46, NYPE 93, and NYPE 2015 forms:

1. NYPE 46: In the NYPE 1946 form, the ship hire payment clause can be found in Clause 4. This clause states that the charterer shall pay hire for the vessel at the agreed rate, in advance, every 15 or 30 days, as specified in the charter party. The clause also outlines the payment method, typically requiring payment in cash without any deductions. However, the NYPE 46 form does not provide detailed guidance on other aspects of hire payment, such as the grace period, interest on overdue hire, or the currency of payment.
2. NYPE 93: The NYPE 1993 form includes an updated ship hire payment clause in Clause 13. This clause states that the charterer shall pay hire in advance at the agreed rate, and at intervals specified in the charter party. The clause also provides more detail on the payment method, specifying that payment should be made in the agreed currency, without set-off, counterclaim, or deduction. Additionally, the NYPE 93 form allows the parties to agree on a grace period for hire payment and outlines the consequences of non-payment, including the shipowner’s right to withdraw the vessel.
3. NYPE 2015: The NYPE 2015 form includes a ship hire payment clause in Clause 10. This clause, like the NYPE 93 form, states that the charterer shall pay hire in advance at the agreed rate, and at intervals specified in the charter party. Payment should be made in the agreed currency, without set-off, counterclaim, or deduction. The NYPE 2015 form also allows the parties to agree on a grace period for hire payment, and specifies the interest rate applicable to any overdue hire. Furthermore, the clause outlines the consequences of non-payment, including the shipowner’s right to withdraw the vessel.

While the NYPE forms provide a framework for addressing ship hire payment, it is essential for the parties to carefully negotiate and customize the ship hire payment clauses to suit their specific needs and circumstances. This includes specifying the hire rate, payment intervals, currency, grace period, interest on overdue hire, and any other terms related to the payment of hire under the charter party agreement.

 

 

Case Study: Ship Hire Payment in Time Charters

Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd (2015)

This article examines the intricacies of time charters, with a specific focus on the New York Produce Exchange Form 1993 (NYPE 1993) – a charterparty recommended by BIMCO and FONASBA. In particular, we will delve into the ruling made by Popplewell J in the case of Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd [2015] EWHC 718 (Comm), which held that payment of hire by the charterers was not a condition of NYPE 1993 charterparties.

The fundamental issue in each time charter is the payment of hire, which often leads to various disputes between parties. In the case of Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd, the Commercial Court was tasked with determining whether the payment of hire by the charterers was a condition of NYPE 1993 or not.

The shipowner in this case owned three vessels that were let on NYPE 1993 to the charterer. The charterer’s obligations were backed by a guarantee provided by its parent company. Although payment of hire was agreed to be made in advance, the charterer fell behind in payment after a year of the charter. The shipowner withdrew the vessels, terminated the charterparties, and initiated arbitration proceedings against the charterer. However, the proceedings were put on hold because the charterer went into liquidation.

As a result, the shipowner began immediate proceedings against the guarantor, seeking the outstanding balance owed under the charter, damages, and arbitration costs. The guarantor, however, contended that it was not liable for the unexpired periods because the right of withdrawal was a contractual option and there had been no repudiatory breach or renunciation.

The court in this case addressed two key issues: first, whether the payment of hire was a condition of the charterparties, and second, if not, whether the charterer had repudiated or renounced the charterparties.

Upon examination of prior cases, the Commercial Court found conflicting decisions regarding the payment of hire as a condition. In The Brimnes, the charterers had agreed to pay hire on the first day of each month but consistently paid late. When the shipowners withdrew the vessel after a payment was made on April 2, the court found that the charterers’ tardiness did not constitute repudiation of the charterparty, although it did affirm the shipowners’ right to withdraw the vessel.

In contrast, in The Astra, an appeal on an arbitration award found that a timely payment of hire was a condition of the contract. The High Court upheld the arbitration award, affirming that the breach of this condition entitled the shipowners to withdraw the vessel and claim damages for loss of bargain.

In the present case of Spar Shipping AS v Grand China Logistics Holding (Group) Co Ltd, the Commercial Court followed the decision made in The Brimnes, declining to adopt the ruling of The Astra.

Although the charterparties did not explicitly state that non-payment of hire would result in mandatory termination, the court found that the withdrawal clause did not make payment of hire a condition. The court noted that the language of the charterparty viewed the termination clause as an option rather than an obligation, leading to a different assessment of remedies available under English law.

The Court determined that:

• Firstly, the inclusion of an explicit right to withdraw in the event of non-payment strongly suggested that such a right would not exist in the absence of such a provision. (In other words, the withdrawal of the vessels was an available option.)
• Secondly, commercial contracts contain a presumption that stipulations regarding payment timing are not considered conditions unless explicitly stated otherwise in the contract. (This means that, unless stated otherwise, such stipulations are considered warranties rather than conditions under English law.)
• Thirdly, breaches of contract can vary in their significance, ranging from trivial to severe, rendering the withdrawal clause an innominate term. (This means that the contract must clearly specify which type of breach of the charterparty would trigger the withdrawal clause becoming a condition.)
• Fourthly, shipowners and charterers had historically operated under the assumption that payment of hire was not a condition, and standard time charter forms had not been amended to reflect otherwise until The Astra.

Furthermore, the Court determined that the charterer had renounced the charterparties, and did not view their conduct as repudiation. This is a crucial difference in the available remedies for an innocent party. In the event of repudiation (i.e. a violation of a condition), the owners would have had the right to terminate the charter and claim damages. However, in the case of renunciation, only damages would be recoverable, and termination of the agreement would not be an option.

In this specific case, the owners’ ability to withdraw the vessel in the absence of a breach of condition was only possible because of the explicit withdrawal terms included in the charter party. Otherwise, there would be no such right.

From the judgement, it is apparent that the standard form of NYPE 1993, absent any modifications, implies that the payment of hire is not a condition. Hence, if the charterer fails to pay or there is a delay in payment, the charterer is not liable for repudiating the contract but instead for renouncing it. The shipowner is not obligated by the charterparty to remove vessels from the charterer. The contract contains an optional clause that the shipowner may choose to exercise or not.

Upon comparing the standard forms of NYPE 1993, NYPE 1946, and BALTIME 1939 (as amended in 2001), it is clear that NYPE 1946 has the same wording as NYPE 1993 in the aforementioned clause, while BALTIME provides the same right of withdrawal using the same optional language as NYPE 1993 and NYPE 1946. Therefore, if charterparties are executed based on these standard forms without any modifications, especially to the payment of hire clause, then the said clause will not be a condition of the charterparty. This would result in different assessments of remedies if the shipowner chooses to withdraw vessels due to the charterer’s late or non-payment of hire.

As such, parties must carefully negotiate and agree upon the terms of payment in time charters. Deciding whether the time of payment is of the essence or not is of critical importance as it would result in different remedies being available for the innocent party in the event of payment delays.

 

 

What are the differences between NYPE 2015 and BALTIME 2001?

 

NYPE 2015 (New York Produce Exchange Form) and BALTIME 2001 are both time charter party forms used in the shipping industry. However, they have different purposes and provisions. Here are the main differences between the two:

1. Purpose:

• NYPE 2015: This is a dry cargo time charter party form commonly used for bulk carriers and general cargo vessels. It was developed by BIMCO, the Association of Ship Brokers & Agents (ASBA), and the Singapore Maritime Foundation (SMF). It is an update to the earlier NYPE 1946 and NYPE 1993 forms.
• BALTIME 2001: This is a time charter party form mainly used for the chartering of tramp ships, particularly bulk carriers and tankers. It is a revision of the BALTIME 1939 form and was developed by BIMCO.

2. Period of Hire:

• NYPE 2015: The period of hire is usually specified as a range, such as 3-5 months or 12-15 months. The exact duration is agreed upon between the owner and the charterer.
• BALTIME 2001: The period of hire is often specified as a fixed duration, which can be extended by mutual agreement.

3. Off-hire:

• NYPE 2015: The off-hire provisions are more detailed than in BALTIME 2001. NYPE 2015 provides a list of specific circumstances under which the vessel is considered off-hire, such as breakdowns, dry-docking, or detainment by authorities.
• BALTIME 2001: Off-hire provisions are more general, stating that the vessel is off-hire if it is unable to perform the required services due to any reason attributable to the vessel or its crew.

4. Bunker Clause:

• NYPE 2015: The bunker clause in NYPE 2015 is more comprehensive, specifying the quality, grades, and prices of bunkers, as well as detailing bunker adjustment factors and the process for dispute resolution.
• BALTIME 2001: The bunker clause in BALTIME 2001 is relatively simple, stating that the charterer shall supply and pay for all bunkers consumed during the charter period.

5. Maintenance and Repairs:

• NYPE 2015: The owner is responsible for maintaining the vessel in a seaworthy condition, and any time spent on repairs, maintenance, or dry-docking will be at the owner’s expense.
• BALTIME 2001: The charterer is responsible for the ordinary maintenance of the vessel and must pay for any repairs required due to the charterer’s negligence or improper use of the vessel.

6. Trading Limits:

• NYPE 2015: Trading limits are more flexible and can be agreed upon between the owner and the charterer during negotiations.
• BALTIME 2001: Trading limits are more specific and are usually stated in the form itself, limiting the vessel’s trading areas.

7. Indemnity and Liabilities:

• NYPE 2015: The indemnity and liability provisions in NYPE 2015 are more detailed, outlining specific circumstances under which the owner or charterer may be liable.
• BALTIME 2001: The indemnity and liability provisions in BALTIME 2001 are more general, with each party bearing responsibility for any damage or loss caused by their own negligence or breach of contract.

8. Inspection Clause:

• NYPE 2015: The inspection clause allows the owner to inspect the vessel at any time during the charter period, provided that they give reasonable notice to the charterer. The charterer is also allowed to inspect the vessel at any time, subject to the owner’s consent.
• BALTIME 2001: There is no specific inspection clause in BALTIME 2001, but the parties may choose to include one in the additional clauses.

9. Redelivery Clause:

• NYPE 2015: The redelivery clause in NYPE 2015 specifies the notice period, which is usually between 15 to 30 days, that the charterer must give before redelivering the vessel to the owner. Additionally, it provides the agreed place of redelivery.
• BALTIME 2001: The redelivery clause in BALTIME 2001 is less detailed, typically stating only that the charterer shall redeliver the vessel in the same good order and condition as when received, except for ordinary wear and tear.

10. Commission:

• NYPE 2015: The commission to be paid to brokers is usually stated as a percentage of the hire and is agreed upon by the parties during negotiations.
• BALTIME 2001: The commission to be paid to brokers is typically a fixed amount per day, which is specified in the form.

11. War Risks:

• NYPE 2015: The war risks clause in NYPE 2015 is more detailed, providing specific provisions for war risks and outlining the responsibilities of each party in the event of war or hostilities.
• BALTIME 2001: The war risks clause in BALTIME 2001 is less comprehensive and typically only states that the vessel will not be ordered to trade in areas where war risks exist without the owner’s consent.

12. Dispute Resolution:

• NYPE 2015: The dispute resolution clause in NYPE 2015 allows the parties to choose between arbitration, mediation, or litigation, with the default option being arbitration. The arbitration process is more detailed, specifying the rules and venue for arbitration.
• BALTIME 2001: The dispute resolution clause in BALTIME 2001 is less detailed, typically stating only that any disputes shall be referred to arbitration.

The choice between NYPE 2015 and BALTIME 2001 depends on the specific needs of the owner and charterer, as well as the type of vessel and cargo involved. NYPE 2015 is a more detailed and comprehensive form, suitable for dry cargo vessels, while BALTIME 2001 is primarily used for tramp ships, with simpler and more concise provisions. When choosing a charter party form, it is essential to consider the unique circumstances of each transaction and consult with legal and industry experts to ensure the chosen form meets the requirements of both parties.