That there can be error in generalising was, however demonstrated by the Petr Schmidt case (Galaxy Energy International Limited v Novorossiysk Shipping Company (1997)) where on the facts and under an Asbatankvoy form the NOR was tendered outside the stipulated hours but nevertheless was a reflection of the truth that the vessel was in all respects ready. The charterers argued that Mexico 1 ruling and said that as the NOR was ineffective, it had to be tendered afresh. The Court, distinguished between a NOR which was ‘ineffective’ because it purported to offer a ready ship when it was not ready and a NOR which was ineffective solely because it was given outside stipulated hours. In the latter event, no fresh NOR need be given and the originally tendered NOR could become effective at the commencement of the stipulated range of hours which in this case was 0600. Independent of the arrived ship principal and the eventual “ticking of the laytime clock” who must bear the cost of the ship waiting for a berth? This is quite simply a matter of charter party wording. If an owner was to ensure that he is compensated for every minute for which his ship is kept waiting after the carrying voyage is completed, then he must include words in the charter party such as are found in the printed Gencon form – time lost in waiting for a berth to count as loading/discharging time (or even laytime) – see The Darrah (1977). These words protect him independently of whether or not the ship has legally arrived provided that the reason for the delay is indeed waiting for a berth. In The Darrah dispute [where the vessel waited (after arrival as it happens) 8 days for a berth] waiting time was agreed to count as laytime and the charterer was allowed to deduct laytime excepted periods from the time lost waiting. This was obviously equitable otherwise the shipowner would have profited out of his ship being kept waiting rather than being berthed.