claimant

Omicron barley, for which the Respondent assumed responsibility in the letter of
indemnity. Alphapoint Shipping Ltd v Rotem Amfert Negev Ltd (The Agios
Dimitrios) 51
34. Laytime was not interrupted, and it expired on 10 November 2008 or at the
latest 22 November 2008, depending on whether the allowed laytime was 2.44
days (25,103.6250mt by 10,250mt per day discharge rate, as per the addendum
to the charterparty) or the remainder of the 20 total days as provided in the
charterparty.
must be distinguished on the facts because of the letter of indemnity
given by the respondent. Therefore, the respondent must be estopped from using
the contamination as an exception to laytime.
35. The Claimant submits that the discharge rate in the addendum should prevail
over the total 20 days of laytime. It is established law that an apparently wide
and absolute provision is subject to limitation, modification, or qualification by
other provisions that do not make the former provision repugnant. 52 Demurrage
is therefore owed either in the amount of $2,700,000 or at least $2,610,000, and
the former figure should be preferred due to the above reasoning.
THE CLAIMANT SHOULD BE AWARDED DAMAGES FOR DETENTION
51 [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 23
52 Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NV v Swissmarine Services SA (The Lowlands Orchid)
[2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 317; Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA [1987]
2 Lloyd’s Rep 342; Bayoil SA v Seawind Tankers Corp (The Leonidas) [2001] 1
Lloyd’s Rep 533
15