Bareboat Charter Hire Purchase Agreement

The effects of the delay The owners argued that under article 32 they were entitled to the immediate return of the ship in the event of delay by the charterers. No notice was required. Alternatively, if a termination was necessary, it was given in the fax of February 24. The charterers argued that this situation fell into the first category. The purpose of including the right of withdrawal under Article 32 was to guarantee rents and deposits. Exemption from forfeiture The last argument put forward by the charterers was that they should be entitled to an exemption from the effect. Such an exemption is not available where the owner exercises a right of withdrawal in the context of a temporal charter, since a charter is a contract for services, does not confer a right of ownership and is not a necessary contract for a given service (The Scaptrade [1988] 2 Lloyd`s Rep 253). The same is not true of that Bareboat charter, under which the shipwreck charterers had obtained contractual and ownership rights over the ship and were entitled to have ownership transferred to them at the end of the charter period. BARECON is a Bareboat Charter Party.

It is a lease that gives the charterer full possession and control of the vessel, as well as legal and financial responsibility for it. The charterer usually pays all operating costs, including fuel, crew, maintenance, repairs as well as P&I and casco insurance. The latest edition of this contract is BARECON 2017 Payment problems The ship was delivered on December 16 or 17, 2003, but problems with the payment of rent quickly appeared. Payments for the first and second months were made five days late. The first was short by 17 cents, the second by $41.17. The owners complained and requested that the deficit be offset by the payment due on February 16 or 17, 2004 in February. On 18 and again on 24 February they bid the payments by fax, and the second time they threatened to take back the ship if the rent was not paid that day. However, the charterers were only able to pay „next week“. On February 25, the owners` brokers informed the charterers that the owners were proposing to withdraw from the charter, which they did later that day.

However, the February payment was made on February 26 (short of $142.67) and another payment of $88.50 was made on March 2. Facts The Bareboat Charterparty The defendant owners chartered the Jotunheim to the defendants under a Bareboat charter for forty-eight months on an amended Barecon 89 form, including Part IV, which provides for a lease agreement. After the expiry of the charter (and if the charterers had fulfilled their obligations), the payment of last month`s lease was to constitute the last part of the purchase price, so that the vessel would then belong to the charterers. . . .