IMLAM 2013 Moot Problem PDF

14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT
2013
IMLAM Moot organised by School of Law, Murdoch University
Oral rounds hosted by School of Law, University of Southampton
MOOT SCENARIO
RELEASED 7 DECEMBER 2012
Note (1): Students are to assume that all necessary documentation has been
provided. Should a document refer to a document(s) which has not been provided
students are to assume that the referred document(s) is/are not relevant to the
matter.
Note (2): Students are to assume that where a Bill of Lading is identified as 'signed
3/3 original Bills of Lading', all three original Bills of Lading are identical to one
another.
We request that teams intending to register for the competition inform the moot organisers as
soon as possible as numbers are required to assist us with planning: m.everall@murdoch.edu.au
Registration forms, the schedule of important dates and other information for competitors can be
found at the website: http://www.law.murdoch.edu.au/maritimemoot/index.html
From: Tom Williams [twilliams@abcbrokers.com]

Sent: 23 May 2008 17:47
To: Paul Taylor [paul.taylor@Aardvark.com]
Subject: PFAD contract 1234
23rd May 2008
Tom Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

1 Appleby Lane
Oxshott
Surrey
Attention: Paul
We confirm following business

Seller: Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd
Buyer: Aardvark Ltd
Quantity: 2000mt
Commodity: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate Malay/ Indonesian origin@sellers option

Min 70% ffa (as Palmitic), min 95% TSM, Max 1% M&I @time of shipment GMQ
Price: US$ 705.00 pmt CIF Rotterdam (Incoterms 2000)
Packing: Bulk Outturn Weights
Shipment: October 2008 from origin

Payment: CAD 99% on presentation
Conditions: FOSFA 81 current
T Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

Sent: 23 May 2008 18:10
Subject: PFAD contract 1235
23rd May 2008

1 Appleby Lane
Oxshott
Surrey
Attention: Paul
We confirm following business

Seller: Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd
Buyer: Aardvark Ltd

Quantity: 2000mt
Commodity: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate Malay/ Indonesian origin@sellers option

Min 70% ffa (as Palmitic), min 95% TSM, Max 1% M&I @time of shipment GMQ
Price: US$ 705.00 pmt CIF Rotterdam (Incoterms 2000)
Packing: Bulk Outturn Weights
Shipment: October 2008 from origin

Payment: CAD 99% on presentation
Conditions: FOSFA 81 current
From: John Walker [jwalker@walkerbrokers.com]

Sent: 12 September 2008
Subject: Fixture re-cap Twilight Trader
We have pleasure in confirming the following fixture concluded today in accordance with your
authority, all subjects lifted and fixture reconfirmed by owners:
TITLE
CHARTERER:
BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD
OWNER:
TWILIGHT CARRIERS INC
BROKER:
WALKER BROKERS
CHARTER PARTY:
VEGOIL VOY
DATED:
12 SEPTEMBER 2008
VESSEL
VESSEL:
TWILIGHT TRADER
CLASSED:
NKK
.
CARGO
CARGO:
FULL CARGO TO FULL CUBIC CAPACITY VARIOUS GRADES CRUDE AND

REFINED PALM/ COCONUT OILS INCLUDING PFAD WITHIN VESSELS NATURAL
SEGREGATION.
PORTS
LOADING:
1-2 SAFE PORTS/ 1 SAFE BERTH KUANTAN/BELAWAN RANGE INCLUDING

DUMAI, SHIFTING AND COSTS TO BE FOR CHARTERERS ACCOUNT AND TIME
TO COUNT AS LAYTIME, PROVIDED ONLY 1 PORT COST APPLIES. IF DOUBLE
PORT COSTS ARE DUE THEN TO BE CONSIDERED AS 2 PORTS IN
COMPUTATION OF FREIGHT.
DISCHARGING:
1 SAFE PORT MERSEY
LAYTIME ETC
TOTAL LAYTIME:
175 METRIC TONS PER HOUR FOR LOADING AND 175 METRIC TONS PER
HOUR FOR DISCHARGING, SUNDAYS AND HOLIDAYS INCLUDED. REVERSIBLE
FREIGHT RATE:
USD 99 PER MT TON ON BASIS 2-1
DEMURRAGE:
USD 25,000 PDPR
LAW AND JURISDICTION:
ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY. LONDON ARBITRATION.
HAGUE-VISBY RULES INCORPORATED INTO CHARTERPARTY.
SAVE AS ABOVE AS PER STANDARD VEGOIL VOY FORM. VEGOILVOY 1/27/50
10
11
12

Sent: 23 September 2008 19:15
Subject: Amended PFAD contracts 1234 & 1235
23rd September 2008

1 Appleby Lane
Oxshott
Surrey
Attention: Paul
Please note it has been mutually agreed that above mentioned contracts are to be
amended as follows:
Price: US$ 747.50 pmt CIF Merseyside, Gladstone Dock (Incoterms 2000)
Please amend your records
Kind regards,
13
Shipper
VEGETABLE OILS SDN BHD
PASIR GUDANG INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
81700 PASIR GUDANG
Consignee TO ORDER
Notify address BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD, 1

WESTBOURNE PARK ROAD, LONDON, W2
Shippers description of goods
PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE,

CLEAN ON BOARD
STOWAGE 2P, 2S, 7P, 7S, SLOP P
& SLOP S
SLIP MELTING POINT 47.2 DEG c
VISCOSITY 10.2mPas at 60 DEG C
Freight payable as per

CHARTER PARTY dated:
FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PER

CHARTERPARTY
FREIGHT ADVANCE
Received on account of freight:
Bill of Lading No.

PG1
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
To be used with charter parties
Page 1
Reference No.
Vessel MT TWILIGHT TRADER
Port of loading PASIR GUDANG, MALAYSIA

Port of discharge LIVERPOOL, MERSEYSIDE, UK
Gross weight
496.906 MTS
(of which
on deck at shippers risk; the Carrier not
being responsible for loss or damage howsoever
arising)
SHIPPED at the Port of Loading in apparent good order and condition on the Vessel for
carriage to the Port of Discharge or so near thereto as the Vessel may safely get the goods
specified above.
Weight, measure, quality, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown.
IN WITNESS whereof the Master or Agent of the said vessel has signed the number of Bills of
Lading indicated below all of this tenor and date, any one of which being accomplished the
others shall be void.
FOR CONDITIONS OF CARRIAGE SEE OVERLEAF.
Date shipped on board
Place and date of issue

PASIR GUDANG,
MALAYSIA, DATED 25TH
OCTOBER 2008
Number of original Bills of

Lading
3 (THREE) ORIGINALS
Signature:
(i) ......................................................................................Master
Masters name and signature
Or
(ii) HAWK SHIPPING SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD.
as Agent for the Master
Agents name and signature
Or
(iii) ....................................................................................as Agent for the Owner*

..........................................................................................Owner
*if option (iii) filled in, state Owners name above
14
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 2
Conditions of Carriage
VEGETABLE OILS sdn bhD
(1) All terms and conditions, liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party, dated as overleaf, including the Law and
Arbitration Clause/Dispute Resolution Clause, are herewith incorporated.
(2) General Paramount Clause

The International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules of Law relating to Bills of Lading signed at Brussels on
25 August 1924 (the Hague Rules) as amended by the Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 February 1968 (the HagueVisby Rules) and as enacted in the country of shipment shall apply to this Contract. When the Hague-Visby Rules are
not enacted in the country of shipment, the corresponding legislation of the country of destination shall apply,
irrespective of whether such legislation may only regulate outbound shipments.
When there is no enactment of the Hague-Visby Rules in either the country of shipment or in the country of destination,
the Hague-Visby Rules shall apply to this Contract save where the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of shipment or
if no such enactment is in place, the Hague Rules as enacted in the country of destination apply compulsorily to this
Contract.
The Protocol signed at Brussels on 21 December 1979 (the SDR Protocol 1979) shall apply where the Hague-Visby
Rules apply, whether mandatorily or by this Contract.
The Carrier shall in no case be responsible for loss of or damage to cargo arising prior to loading, after discharging, or
while the cargo is in the charge of another carrier, or with respect to deck cargo and live animals.
(3) General Average

General Average shall be adjusted, stated and settled according to York-Antwerp Rules 1994 in London unless another
place is agreed in the Charter Party.
Cargos contribution to General Average shall be paid to the Carrier even when such average is the result of a fault,
neglect or error of the Master, Pilot or Crew.
(4) New Jason Clause

In the event of accident, danger, damage or disaster before or after the commencement of the voyage, resulting from any
cause whatsoever, whether due to negligence or not, for which, or for the consequence of which, the Carrier is not
responsible, by statute, contract or otherwise, the cargo, shippers, consignees or the owners of the cargo shall
contribute with the Carrier in General Average to the payment of any sacrifices, losses or expenses of a General Average
nature that may be made or incurred and shall pay salvage and special charges incurred in respect of the cargo. If a
salving vessel is owned or operated by the Carrier, salvage shall be paid for as fully as if the said salving vessel or
vessels belonged to strangers. Such deposit as the Carrier, or his agents, may deem sufficient to cover the estimated
contribution of the goods and any salvage and special charges thereon shall, if required, be made by the cargo, shippers,
consignees or owners of the goods to the Carrier before delivery.
(5) Both-to-Blame Collision Clause

If the Vessel comes into collision with another vessel as a result of the negligence of the other vessel and any act, neglect
or default of the Master, Mariner, Pilot or the servants of the Carrier in the navigation or in the management of the
Vessel, the owners of the cargo carried hereunder will indemnify the Carrier against all loss or liability to the other or
non-carrying vessel or her owners in so far as such loss or liability represents loss of, or damage to, or any claim
whatsoever of the owners of said cargo, paid or payable by the other or non-carrying vessel or her owners to the
owners of said cargo and set-off, recouped or recovered by the other or non-carrying vessel or her owners as part of
their claim against the carrying Vessel or the Carrier.
The foregoing provisions shall also apply where the owners, operators or those in charge of any vessel or vessels or
objects other than, or in addition to, the colliding vessels or objects are at fault in respect of a collision or contact.
15
Shipper
81700 PASIR GUDANG
Consignee TO ORDER


CLEAN ON BOARD
& SLOP S


CHARTERPARTY
FREIGHT ADVANCE
Bill of Lading No.

PG2
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 1
Reference No.

Gross weight
500.494 MTS
(of which
arising)
specified above.

PASIR GUDANG,
OCTOBER 2008

Lading
3 (THREE) ORIGINALS
Signature:
(i) ......................................................................................Master
Or
(ii)
HAWK SHIPPING SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD. as Agent for the Master
Or

..........................................................................................Owner
16
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 2

Contract.
(3) General Average



17
Shipper
81700 PASIR GUDANG
Consignee TO ORDER


CLEAN ON BOARD
& SLOP S


CHARTERPARTY
FREIGHT ADVANCE
Bill of Lading No.

PG3
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 1
Reference No.

Gross weight
1998.177 MTS
(of which
arising)
specified above.

PASIR GUDANG,
OCTOBER 2008

Lading
3 (THREE) ORIGINALS
Signature:
(i) ......................................................................................Master
Or
(ii)
HAWK SHIPPING SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD.as Agent for the Master
Or

..........................................................................................Owner
18
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 2

Contract.
(3) General Average



19
Shipper
81700 PASIR GUDANG
Consignee TO ORDER


CLEAN ON BOARD
& SLOP S


CHARTERPARTY
FREIGHT ADVANCE
Bill of Lading No.

PG4
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 1
Reference No.

Gross weight
999.970 MTS
(of which
arising)
specified above.

PASIR GUDANG,
OCTOBER 2008

Lading
3 (THREE) ORIGINALS
Signature:
(i) ......................................................................................Master
Or
(ii)
HAWK SHIPPING SERVICES (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD .as Agent for the Master
Or

..........................................................................................Owner
20
CONGENBILL 2007
BILL OF LADING
Page 2

Contract.
(3) General Average



21
Aardvark Limited
Delta Limited
Alexander House
Lancaster
SALES CONTRACT
Date 2nd December 2008
WE CONFIRM HAVING SOLD TO YOU:
CONTRACT NUMBER: 54028
YOUR REFERENCE: BV-2081482
PRODUCT: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate
CONTRACT QUANTITY: 1,600 Metric Tonnes

CONTRACT PRICE: GBP 340 Per Metric Ton
DELIVERY PERIOD: Delivery January to October 2009

DELIVERY: Delivered Shotton Malindo Production
CONTRACT TERMS: FOSFA 91
PAYMENT TERMS: 28 days after date of delivery
22
Aardvark Limited
Caspian BV
7-15 Love Lane
Bromborough
SALES CONTRACT
Date 20th January 2009
WE CONFIRM HAVING SOLD TO YOU:
CONTRACT NUMBER: 01206
YOUR REFERENCE: A/210978
PRODUCT: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate
CONTRACT QUANTITY: 3,365 Metric Tonnes
CONTRACT PRICE: GBP 418.50 Per Metric Ton
DELIVERY PERIOD: Delivery February to August 2009

DELIVERY: Delivered Bromborough
CONTRACT TERMS: FOSFA 79
PAYMENT TERMS: 20th day following month.
23
From: Chris Smith [chris.smith@reynoldssolicitors.co.uk]

Sent: 25 February 2009 02:32
To: Ben Thompson [bthompson@thompsonpuxton.com]
Subject: PFAD
Dear Ben,
Our clients, Aardvark Ltd, have heard of a potential buyer in Southern Italy who would be
interested in receiving the cargo for burning. A price of around $325 CIF has been
indicated for the whole cargo, subject to specifications. If this interest I real then it would
achieve a much greater return for the cargo than burning in the UK, with all the difficulty
and expense which that would entail. Are your clients agreeable to our clients
investigating this further, or would they prefer to do so themselves?
Kind regards,
Chris Smith
24
From: Paul Taylor [paul.taylor@Aardvark.com]

Sent: 6 March 2009 14:00
To: Mark Wiggins [mark.wiggins@bof.com]
Subject: PFAD contracts
Dear Sirs,
We have finally received your cargo insurance policy. It appears from this that contrary
to the terms of our sales contract, the policy is not an agreed value policy for 105% of the
invoice vale, but rather than unvalued policy with the insured value limited to its market
value on departure plus costs of freight and insurance. It is also subject to German law
and our contract requires an insurance policy governed by English law. It is clear that by
reason of the piracy the cargo will have no value on arrival in Liverpool.
In the circumstances we have no alternative but to accept these breaches of contract as
repudiatory breaches of our contract bringing it to an end, which we hereby do. We
require immediate repayment of the contract price of USD 2,986,671.38 paid to you on
26th January 2009 together with interest.
For your information the vessel was released by the pirates on 13 February and we
understand that it is now en route to Liverpool, although PAI, who are the certifying body
for FEMAS the trade assurance scheme under which we are regulated, have confirmed
that by reason of the piracy the cargo cannot be used as a food or feed ingredient and also
cannot be disposed to any non-food/ feed use due to the risk of by products entering the
food/ feed chain.
Yours faithfully
Paul Taylor
25
From: Mark Wiggins [mark.wiggins@bof.com]

Sent: 15 March 2009 21:00
Dear Paul,
Beatles are not liable for alleged losses that you may have suffered in consequence of the
vessels delay. Nor for that matter do we believe are insurers, a point that they have made
to you previously.
The reality here is that the value of the cargo has dropped significantly between the date
of contract, shipment and today. The hijack in the Gulf of Aden was wholly unexpected
and the sole cause of this protracted voyage. However that is a risk that Aardvark always
took.
Your message is already a clear notice of an anticipatory breach of contract, which we

accept. This allows us to immediately place you in repudiation of this shipment and in
default, thereby bringing the contract to an end. We will then be forced to sail the Twilight
Trader elsewhere and dispose of the cargo in mitigation of our losses. Those losses will
then be claimed from you and we will be taking steps to secure those claims by way of
attachment.
Kind regards,
Mark
26

Sent: 16 March 2009 15:20
Dear Mark,
I was extremely disappointed to receive your message.
You have no answer to the PAI ruling that this cargo cannot now be used in the feed/ food
chain, which all in the business know is simply the obvious application of the
precautionary principle and the imperatives of traceability, in an industry which has
suffered hugely from a series of unlikely contamination disasters, including BSE. In
breach of contract you are insisting that we take delivery of cargo which you know is not
GMQ and can never be.
We have made it clear from the outset, whilst reserving our rights, that we did not
consider that the cargo should be sent to Liverpool where it would have no value. We
have also made it clear however that this is a decision for you as cargo owners and
charterers to make.
The position needs to be crystallised so that proper mitigating steps can be taken.
Accordingly, and with regret we hereby accept your messages and the whole of your
conduct as repudiatory and/or renunciatory breach of contract bringing it to an end.
You know full well that better alternative destinations for the cargo are the bio energy
buyers that we identified for you in Italy or you have found in Spain or Holland, who are
able to burn the cargo and realise a higher value.
All our rights are reserved.
Regards,
Paul
27

Sent: 16 March 2009 18:19
Dear Paul,
Thank you for your message purporting to terminate the contract on the basis of an
alleged repudiation by ourselves.
For the avoidance of doubt that contention is rejected.
We are not in anticipatory repudiatory breach of contract or in renunciation of it at all. To

the contrary, the totality of your conduct to date, including your purported termination,
clearly evinces an intention by you that you do not intend to be bound by the terms of the
contract for the shipment of the Twilight Tanker and places you in repudiatory/
renunciatory breach of it.
We hereby accept that conduct/ repudiation/ renunciation as bringing the contract for
the Twilight Tanker shipment to an end.
We will not now sail to Liverpool. She will, in mitigation of our losses, now sail elsewhere
where we hope find a buyer for the full cargo (i.e. 14,500 mt). You have abandoned your
rights in relation to the 4,000 mt of cargo you bought from us.
Kind regards,
Mark
28

Sent: 17 March 2009 14:22
Dear Mark,
We have received the bills of lading for the cargo but have not heard from you how you
wish to proceed with the disposal of the above cargo. We have already paid for it and we
may have to dispose of it on your behalf.
Can you please assist us by providing us with the full details of your proposed sales and
the destination of the other remaining Beatles material on the Twilight Trader.
Kind regards,
Paul
29

Sent: 17 March 2009 18:30
Thank you for your message. In mitigation we intend to ask Owners, Twilight Carriers, to
take this cargo to Rotterdam where we are arranging for it (and other cargo) to be sold.
In order to do this we need the bills of lading from you.
Please send us the bills asap.
Mark
30

Sent: 18 March 2009 11:00
Mark,
Please advise where you want the bills lading sending.
Paul
31

Sent: 18 March 2009 15:19
Paul,
Please forward the original bills of lading to our office by courier today advising us at the
same time of the courier number to allow us to track the package.
Mark
32

Sent: 18 March 2009 16:01
Mark,
Because you have not agreed to refund us the purchase price of the cargo we have
couriered the bills to Johnson & Johnson in Rotterdam for them to make available when
the vessel arrives (and when you have provided the return of the purchase price)
Paul
33

Sent: 20 March 2009 12:30
Paul,
You made your position quite clear. You have abandoned the cargo and you are no longer
the legal holder of the bills of lading in respect of it. You have no entitlement to give
Owners orders in respect of the cargo. You have been asked to surrender the bills of
lading and deliver them to us. It is our intention to remove this cargo from the vessel and
you should provide the bills to prevent their being any delay to the vessel.
In the absence of your positive response within that deadline, then please note that there
is storage available in Rotterdam and this cargo will be discharged into that storage
pending resolution of issues between us.
Mark
34

Sent: 20 March 2009 16:01
Mark,
We are in dispute with you over the cargo and have placed you in breach of contract. You
have refused to accept that you are in breach of contract and this dispute will be pursued
through normal FOSFA contractual channels. In the meantime it is our obligation to
dispose of the cargo to the best of our means in order to mitigate costs. With your refusal
to cooperate with our request to alter the destination of the Bills of Lading in order for us
to find the best buyers we shall therefore be obliged to take the cargo in Liverpool as
called for by the contract and as specified in the bills of lading. Accordingly, I have asked
for our Superintendents to retain the bills of lading so that we may discharge the cargo in
Liverpool.
Paul
35
Aardvark Limited
To Owners of the Twilight Trader
20th March 2009
Re: Twilight Trader Top Urgent

Bills of Lading PG1 to PG4
We are the lawful holders of the above bills of lading. We have a short while ago been put
on notice by your charterers Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd that they intend to discharge the
above cargo in Rotterdam this afternoon.
Please be advised that we have not authorised Itochu to do this and if you comply with
their instructions without any authority to do so you will be in breach of the contract of
carriage and responsible for all loss and damage we sustain.
Regards,
Paul Taylor
36
BY FAX
TCB
Thomas, Cropper, Benedict

Consulting mariners, engineers & scientists
TO: Charterers Inc
No: of pages:
Date: 18 March 2009
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This fax is confidential and may be covered by legal professional
privilege. It must not be read, copied, disclosed or used by any person other than by the
above named addressee. Unauthorised use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this fax in error please contact us immediately.
Re: mv TWILIGHT TRADER Analysis
In accordance with your instructions we have analysed the samples drawn by SGS on our
behalf from the above vessels tanks off Fujairah on 25th February 2009. We now report
as follows:
1. The samples drawn

4 x 1 litre skim top and 4 x 1 litre running samples were drawn from each of the
vessels tanks by SGS. One set of samples drawn was handed to each participating
party, and the TCB samples were subsequently despatched by SGS to the TCB
laboratory in Swansea for analysis.
2. The analysis undertaken
We had been instructed to perform certain key FOSFA test to verify the product quality
and to establish whether there was any evidence of contamination.
3. The FOSFA analysis

The specified FOSAFA tests were undertaken on a gravimetric composite of vessels
running samples for each of the grades loaded at the various loadports.
The results were as follows:
PFAD 1: samples ex tanks 2 P/S, 7 P?S SLP P/S

FFA content:
81.1% as palmitic acid
Insoluble impurities
0.01%
Moisture/ volatiles:
0.88%
Unsaponifiable matter:
2.06%
TSM content
97.17%
37
Flash point
greater than 200oC
PFAD 2: samples ex tanks 1 P/S, 3 P/S ,6 P/S
FFA content:
86.8% as palmitic acid
Insoluble impurities
0.04%
Moisture/ volatiles:
0.63%
Unsaponifiable matter:
1.82%
TSM content
97.4%
Flash point
greater than 200oC
The above results are within normal limits and do not give any indication of significant
contamination or deterioration in the cargo quality. However it is important to note that
the running samples drawn may not have been fully representative of the total tank
contents, so the above results may not properly represent the overall quality of the cargo.
Further, it is possible that the quality of the cargo will be/ has been affected by the
solidification and re-heating that has arisen in this matter. This will only become
apparent if the cargo is sampled and analysed at the discharge port.
4. The contamination analysis
The skim top samples drawn from the cargo surface of each vessels tank were tested for
the presence of contaminates.
The GC analysis found no apparent evidence of organic contaminates in the cargo,

However, the ICP analysis indicated relatively high levels of arsenic in the skim top
samples drawn from tanks 3 P&S and 7 P&S. The results obtained were confirmed both
by repeat analysis on these samples and also by separate analysis on the water extracts
from the relevant running samples.
The arsenic levels found in tanks 3 P&S and 7 P&S are below the UK maximum legal limits
for foodstuffs. Therefore, based upon the arsenic result alone, the cargo would remain
suitable for use in the human food chain. However, such levels are around 50 times
higher than those for the remainder of the tanks, which suggests that there was some
contamination evidence to those particular samples.
We do not consider it likely that the contamination could have arisen during the sampling
process. Furthermore there does not appear to have been any significant differences
between the vessels preparations of tanks 3 P&S and 7 P&S and any other thanks on the
vessel as all these tanks were passivated with nitric acid prior to loading. This process
should have removed any arsenic that may have been present.
Therefore there remains the possibility that arsenic (or material containing arsenic) was
introduced into the tanks during the period of captivity off Somalia. In this regard, the
vessels Master and Chief Officer reported that his crew members did not observe any
attempts to access the cargo during the period of capacity, although they added that the
tank opening were only ovserved periodically from the bridge.
Therefore based on the available evidence, we are unable to discount the possibility that
there was some unauthorized access to the cargo during the period of captivity.
38
For Thomas, Cropper & Benedict
W.H. Cropper
39
Aspinall Lewis International

MT TWILIGHT TRADER
Inspection of the Cargo of Palm Oil After Hijacking at Somalia
November 2008 February 2009
19 March 2009
Incident Investigation & Claims Analysis, Food & Agricultural

Products, Marine & Shipping
40
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
1.1.1 Aspinall Lewis International was instructed by Aardvark Ltd, the receivers of a
cargo of approximately 18,493.217 mt of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) and Palm Fatty
Acid Distillate (PFAD) carried by the MT TWILIGHT TRADER to attend the
vessel after she was released from hijacking in Somalia to investigate the
circumstances under which the cargo was kept during the hijacking period and
the condition of the cargo upon release.
1.1.2 The author of this report is Julia Mynott of Aspinall Lewis International. She is a
Master Mariner with tanker and vegetable oil experience.
1.1.3 Julia Mynott attended the ship after the ship had arrived in Fujairah. On 22
February I arrived in Fujairah. In the afternoon there was a brief session
whereby the attending cargo surveyors, acting for the cargo receivers, the
cargo underwriters, the charterers and the owners P&I Club could question the
Master and Chief Officer who were on board during the hijacking, with regard to
the cargo. On 23 and 25 February, I attended on board the vessel to obtain
documents, inspect the vessel with regard to the cargo and inspect the cargo in
her 22 tanks.
1.2 Background
1.2.1 The TWILIGHT TRADER had loaded a full cargo of 3,994.516 mt of Palm Fatty
Acid Distillate (PFAD) at Pasir Gudang (Malaysia), 4,999.282 mt of PFAD and
9,449.419 mt of Crude Palm Oil (CPO) at Dumai (Indonesia) in all her tanks,
1-10 port and starboard and in the port and starboard slop tanks, in total in 22
tanks. After completion of loading she sailed from Dumai on 5 November 2008
and proceeded to Liverpool, where she had to discharge the cargo, via the Gulf
of Aden and the Suez Canal. The vessels crew had received carrying
instructions for heating the cargo during the voyage and heating up the cargo in
the last week prior to arrival.
1.2.2 At 0742 on 14 November 2008 the vessel passed the line 54o East Longitude
which is the entrance to the Gulf of Aden, north of the Island of Socotra and
commenced anti-pirate watch. At 1250 hrs on 15 November 2008 the vessel
was boarded by Somali pirates and was ordered by the pirates to sail to the
Somali coast where the vessel and the vessels crew was held hostage until
she was released on 12 February 2009. No details were obtained as to the
exact position of the vessel during this period. At about noon on 13 February
2009 the last pirate left the ship and the MT TWILIGHT TRADER proceeded to
Fujairah (UAE) where she arrived and dropped anchor in the roads at 1426 hrs
on 21 February 2009 A new crew boarded the vessel at 1600 hrs and at 1730
hrs, all on the same day, the old crew was disembarked
1.2.3 Between 1525 and 1545 hrs on 22 February the surveyors, including Julia
Mynott, were allowed to debrief the Master and Chief Officer with regard to the
care of the cargo during the hijacking period.
41
1.2.4 Having spoken to the Master and Chief Officer the following was ascertained:
There was no heating applied to the cargo during the period of captivity nor
during the subsequent voyage to Fujairah.
There were no daily records of cargo temperature recorded during the
period of captivity.
The vessels crew were mostly confined to the bridge. A permanent lookout
over the deck was not maintained, but the vessels position was verified at
intervals not exceeding 1 hour during which time the deck area could be
observed. The deck was illuminated at night.
Part of the vessels crew were allowed onto the deck on occasions to attend
to the anchor in periods of heavy weather.
The Master and Chief Officer stated that they did not observe any broaching
of the cargo tanks during the period of captivity.
Whilst on passage to Fujairah, the Master & Chief Officer, accompanied by
the Bosun, 1 AB seamen, 2 ordinary seaman and the deck trainee opened
the cargo hatch to each cargo tank. The Master and Chief Officer reported
that there was no visible sign of the hatches having been opened, and that
in their view, the corrosion present indicated that the hatches had not been
opened during the period of captivity.
1.2.5 The Master and Chief Officer told us that once anchored somewhere, most
likely near the Somali coast, the entire crew of 23 men was confined all 24
hours per day to the bridge, except for meals in the mess room. They lived in
the clothes they had on with one blanket on the bridge where they were only
allowed to sit or lie and not allowed to stand or look outside. At times there
were some 30 pirates on board who lived in the crew accommodation. I
understand from the Master that the number of pirates varied and that there
was communication by boat from and to the shore.
1.2.6 During captivity no maintenance or inspections on deck were allowed
whatsoever. A team of two engineers was only allowed to maintain the auxiliary
engine in the engine room and keep it running.
2.0 SAMPLING
2.1 On 25 February 2009 the surveyors attended on board in the presence of SGS
personnel. Between 1030 and 2200 hrs all tanks were sampled by SGS in the
presence of the surveyors. SGS used a stainless steel sampler. Samples were taken
from the tank entrance hatch. Prior to sampling the sampler and the buckets used for
the sampling were thoroughly cleaned. A clean rope was used to lower the sampler.
The samplers wrote rubber gloves. Care was taken during the whole operation from
taking the samples to filing the plastic sample bottles that the cargo could not be
contaminated.
42
2.2 From each tank one sample was drawn from the upper layer and one running
sample from top to bottom of the liquid phase above the solidified cargo. The two
samples taken from each tank were separately split into 5 similar copies of the sample
into 5 new and clean plastic bottles, to be closed with an inner seal and a screw cap.
In total 2x5 samples per tank for 22 tanks is 220 samples were taken.
3. DISCUSSION AND COMMENT
3.1 Although I have seen no evidence that the tanks at any location were opened and
cargo was taken out or something dropped into the cargo it is without any doubt that
the tanks could have been opened (and closed) at any stage of the 3 months of
capticity while the pirates, at times as many as 30 pirates, were in charge of the
vessel.
4. STATEMENT
4.1 The facts within this report are within my own direct knowledge and have been
identified as such and are true.
4.2 the opinions expressed within this report represent my true professional opinions.
Julia Mynott
Associate Director
Aspinall Lewis International LLP
43
BY COURIER
PARADOX BANK -
Aardvark Ltd
Aardvark House
The High Street
Bootle
Merseyside
Amsterdam, April 3, 2009
Re: bank guarantee No. 478 in favour of Aardvark Ltd for USD 1,400,000
Upon instructions given by our principals we have issued above mentioned guarantee.
Please find attached our original guarantee plus two copies.
Please acknowledge receipt
Yours faithfully
Paradox Bank
44
ROTTERDAM GUARANTEE FORM 2008

GUARANTEE NO. 210978
The undersigned, PARADOX BANK of AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS, waiving and
renouncing all rights and defences conferred on guarantors, and in particular the
provisions of the articles 7:852 and 7:855 Dutch Civil Code, hereby irrevocably declares to
bind itself as surety to and in favour of Aardvark Ltd with its registered office Aardvark
House, The High Street, Bootle, Merseyside (the Creditor) by way of security for the true
and proper payment by Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd with its registered office at 23 Fleet Street,
London, EC4Y 1AU(the Principal Debtor) of the amount the Principal Debtor may be
found to be indebted to the Creditor by virtue of a judgment rendered against the
Principal Debtor by a competent court of law having jurisdiction in the matter hereinafter
mentioned, or by virtue of a valid arbitration award which is not or no longer subject to
appeal or by virtue of an amicable settlement between the parties, in respect of the
principal amount, interest and costs of suit relating to a claim at present estimated by the
Creditor at USD 2.9 million for the breach of conditions under the Bills of Lading with
numbers PG1 to PG4 dated 25 October regarding delivery of in total 3994.516 mt PFAD.
This guarantee is hereby given without any prejudice and for a maximum amount of USD
1,400,000 for the purpose of the release from and/or the prevention of a prejudgment
attachment of the mt TWILIGHT TRADER on account of the above mentioned claims.
This guarantee is governed by the law of the Netherlands. The undersigned and the
Creditor submit to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the competent court of law in
Rotterdam fir disputes and claims in respect of this guarantee.
Issued in Amsterdam 3 April 2009.
45
D&F BROKERS LTD

COMMODITY BROKERS AND SHIPPERS FOR VEGETABLE OIL AND FATS
Aardvark Ltd
Aardvark House
The High Street
Bootle
Merseyside
Date: 16 April 2009
SALES NOTE No. 0164
We have this day sold to you:
Description: About 7,000 M. Tonnes Palm Fatty Acid Distillate
Quality: Tel Quel.
Price: USD 522.50 per MT
Packing: In bulk
Parity: Ex tank Liverpool.
Shipment/ Delivery: 24th April 5th June 2009
Payment: Nett cash against invoice before release. Goods to be released immediately
after funds received at Sellers bank or copy of Swift payment from Buyers bank to
confirm payment made, whichever the earlier.
Other terms: As per FOSFA 79
All goods remain the property of D&F Brokers Ltd until paid in full.
Collection at Buyers call not later than:
1,000 MT each: 24th April 2009, 1st May 2009, 8th May 2009, 15th May 2009, 22nd May
2009, 29th May 2009, 5th June 2009.
46
D&F BROKERS LTD

COMMODITY BROKERS AND SHIPPERS FOR VEGETABLE OIL AND FATS
Aardvark Ltd
Aardvark House
The High Street
Bootle
Merseyside
Date: 7 May 2009
SALES NOTE No. 0178
We have this day sold to you:
Description: About 4,000 M. Tonnes Palm Fatty Acid Distillate
Quality: Tel Quel.
Price: USD 627.50 per MT
Packing: In bulk
Parity: Ex tank Liverpool.
Shipment/ Delivery: June/ July 2009 delivery.
Payment: Nett cash against invoice before release. Goods to be released immediately
after funds received at Sellers bank or copy of Swift payment from Buyers bank to
confirm payment made, whichever the earlier.
Other terms: As per FOSFA 79
All goods remain the property of D&F Brokers Ltd until paid in full.
Buyer anticipates to take equal quantities over the contract period, but subject to their
requirements.
47
SURVEYS INC
We, SURVEYS INC, Average Agents and Marine Surveyors at Rotterdam. The Netherlands
having on 7 April 2009 been requested by INSURANCE CO PLC to survey and report on
the nature, extent and circumstances regarding the consignments of
PFAD: 3,994.516 mton
PFAD: 4,999.282 mton
9,499.419 mton
herewith certify that we have been appointed our own staff surveyor Mr. S Hosking and
cab report as follows:
TRANSPORT DETAILS
Conveyance:
From/ to:
Re-directed to:
PARTIES
Shippers/ Sellers:
Consignees:
Carriers:
Storage Terminal:
CIRCUMSTANCES
mt TWILIGHT TRADER
Pasir Gudand and Dumai, Indonesia to Merseryside UK
Rotterdam, where arrived 20 March 2009
Unknown, Indonesia
Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd
Gamma Navigation, Panama
Vopak Terminal, Vlaardingen BV
Application for survey was made in connection with possible quality issues, as supposed
result of the hijack of the vessel between 15 November 2008 and 13 February 2009, by
Somali pirates in the Gulf of Eden.
DATE AND PLACE OF SURVEY

Initial survey was held at the Vopak Terminal Vlaardingen BV on or about 20 March 2009.
STOWAGE IN SHIPs TANK HOLD
Subject consignments in bulk were stowed in the following ships tanks:

PFAD 3,994.516 mton
PFAD 4,999.282 mton
CPO 9,499.419 mton
ship tanks 2 P/S, 7 P/S, SL P/S

ship tanks 1 p/s, 3 p/s, 6 p/s
ship tanks 4 P/S, 5 P/S, 8 P/S, 9 P/S, 10 P/S
STEPS TAKEN/ ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGE

We learned that as a supposed result of the hijack and fear of deterioration of the
product(s) the initial buyer in Liverpool, UK rejected the consignments.
For this reason the consignee and trader [insert] re-directed the vessel to Rotterdam.
Here the vessel discharge the majority of the VegOils into their own tanks at Vopak
48
Terminal. Reportedly part of the consignment was transhipped into the mt TANKER 1
for secondary buyers [insert] in Stockholm.
SOUND MARKET VALUE OF THE AFFECTED GOODS

PFAD values were received on a FOB Malaysia basis: USD 465/mton (Sep/Oct) Oct/Nov
USD 335/mton Nov/Dec USD 320/mt Dec/Jan USD 335/mton Jan/Feb USD
325/mton Feb/Mar USD 325/mton Mar/Apr USD 360/mton. For CIF Rotterdam value
add USD 65 to 70/mton. Public Ledger states an average value in March 2009 of USD
603/mton and in November 2008 of USD 548.63/mton on basis of FOSFA 80 contract.
This report is based on the facts presently known to us and is submitted without
prejudice to the rights of whom it may concern. All our findings and comments are
subject to the underlying insurance policy conditions, if applicable. The right to amend or
supplement this report at any time is reserved.
9 June 2009
SURVEYS INC
49
DUTCH SURVEYORS B.V

EXPERTS - CARGO SURVEYORS - INTERNATIONAL LOSS ADJUSTERS
Dear Mr. Taylor,
Re: Inquiries regarding the value of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) and regarding the quality of the
product during transport/storage under various conditions. Your ref: unknown. Our ref: 14782.079/WS/EB.
We refer to your esteemed instructions of 3rd July 2009.
We, Dutch Surveyors B.V., surveyors loss adjusters at Rotterdam have already more than 40 years
evidence in the handling of cargo damages, amongst which in vegetable oils and related products. In
these matters we acted on behalf of cargo interest, (liability) underwriters and storekeepers. For example,
we are dedicated surveyors for Vopak, one of the largest storekeepers for liquids, including vegetable oils
and related products. Our surveyor, Mr. William Smit, is already working more than 20 years for our
company.
It was learned that a consignment of PFAD, which was loaded on board of a sea vessel in Malaysia in
October 2008, was finally discharged at Rotterdam in March 2009. The arrival of the cargo was seriously
delayed since the concerning vessel had been hijacked off the coast of Somalia. The subject cargo is
stored in a shoretank at Rotterdam since March 2009. Considering the circumstances the cargo was
exposed to, including transit and storage during 8 months under fluctuating storage temperatures, it was
questioned how long the cargo will remain of good merchantable quality.
Palm fatty acid distillate is a by-product of the palm oil refining process. It is a light brown solid at room
temperature, melting to a brown liquid on heating. It has a high free fatty acid level and a PH range
between 1.5 and 7. Recommended product temperatures are in range of 42C / 50C during storage and
transit and between 55C and 70C during unloading and transfer.
We made enquiries with laboratories, storekeepers and traders and learned somewhat contradictory
information. Naturally pfad will age and oxidize as any other vegetable product. However, at what point
the product then should be considered as of not merchantable quality anymore remained unknown and is
also depending on the use.
In general, the oxidation level of a vegetable product (oil) and it tendency to get (more) rancid is
depending on the number of peroxides present in the product. Insaturated free fatty acids in the product
react with oxygen and form peroxides, which determine a series of chain reactions that generate the
production of volatile substances that bring the typical rancid off smell. Those reactions are accelerated
by high temperature and by light and by oxygen exposure. In particular it was questioned whether PFAD,
which could have a low PH, should be regarded as vegetable product (oil) with could get more rancid,
since it is already quite acid and mainly consisting of free fatty acids. Except for P, for which there is a
wide range, there are no clear guidelines/specifications as to the keeping qualities of this product.
At present the product is stored in unheated condition in a shoretank with air above the product, under
which condition the product is solid and the aforementioned oxidation reactions will only develop slowly.
50
Storekeepers indicated to have records about parcels of unheated pfad which were stored in tank for
about a year.
In case the product is heated and/or exposed to fluctuating temperatures, in general, aging and oxidation
will take place much quicker. The extent and speed of these oxidation reactions can not be forecasted at
all and is strongly depending on the quality of the product and its history. In general it can be said that any
handling such as transfer and heating to the required temperature will affect the quality of the oil/product
in the end.
In this matter the product was heated and cooled down for several times and therefore it is likely that the
quality of the product has suffered from these handlings to some extent. As mentioned before, it cannot
be indicated to what extend, since this is depending on various factors.
Palm fatty acid distillate is a commodity, the value of which is depending on world supply and demand. To
give you an idea we have listed the sound market value of the product, as published The Public Ledger,
which reports on world commodities on a weekly basis. We noted the following prices over 2009 on a
basis Free on board Malaysia ports (A) resp. Cost and Freight Merseyside (UK) (B), both in USD per
mton on the following dates:
Date
12/01
19/01
26/01
02/02
09/02
16/02
23/02
02/03
09/03
16/03
23/03
30/03
06/04
13/04
20/04
27/04
04/05
11/05
18/05
25/05
01/06
08/06
15/06
22/06
29/06
(A)
360.00
365.00
345.00
330.00
335.00
340.00
320.00
325.00
330.00
340.00
340.00
360.00
370.00
405.00
485.00
485.00
505.00
565.00
575.00
560.00
565.00
570.00
540.00
510.00
490.00
(B)
435.00
435.00
435.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
440.00
430.00
360.00
360.00
535.00
535.00
580.00
580.00
650.00
650.00
650.00
650.00
650.00
635.00
635.00
According to these quotations, the sound market value for the product is fluctuating and at present
considerably higher that earlier this year.
51
For our intervention and further outlays we take the liberty to debit your account as per enclosed debitnote.
In the meantime we remain,
Yours faithfully,
Dutch Surveyors BV
52
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE ARBITRATION RE: THE DUTCH

PROCEEDINGS AND SALE OF THE CARGO
It is agreed by the parties to the arbitration that the following is an accurate statement
of facts as to the Dutch proceedings.
1. Between 20 and 22 March 2009 the Owners discharged the cargo to Beatles against a letter
of indemnity. The cargo was put into storage at Rotterdam port.
2. The letter of indemnity materially provided as follows:

Bills of lading PG1 to PG4 The above cargo was shipped on the MT Twilight Trader by
Vegetable Oils Sdn Bhd and signed to ORDER with notifying to Beatles Oils & Fats for delivery at
the port of Liverpool, Merseyside, UK. We, Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd, hereby request you to deliver
the said cargo at Rotterdam, The Netherlands without production of the original bills of lading.
In consideration of your complying with our above request, we hereby agree as follows:
1. To indemnity you, your servants and agents and to hold all of you harmless in respect of any
liability, loss, damage or expense of whatsoever nature which you may sustain by reason of
delivering the cargo in accordance with our request.
2. In the event of proceedings being commenced against you or any of your servants or agents in
connection with the delivery of the cargo as aforesaid, to provide you or them on demand with
sufficient funds to defend the same.
This indemnity shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and each
and every person liable under this indemnity shall at your request submit to the jurisdiction of
the High Court of Justice of England.
3. On 23 March 2009 Beatles brought a petition to garnish property before judgment as well
as to attach moveable goods. Aardvark was a defendant to those proceedings.
53
4. Aardvark made an application in the Dutch Court to arrest the Vessel and the Vessel was
arrested on 23 March 2009. On 27 March 2009 the Rotterdam Court ordered that the arrest
could be lifted in return for the Owners (Twilight Carriers) (or Beatles on behalf of the
Owners) providing security of USD 1.4 million. This figure was based on the Courts
assessment of the value of the cargo as having a value of USD 1.2 million During the
session, the interlocutory judge (re)assessed the loss at the value which the palm oil in question
would have had if it had been sold as lamp oil. During the session, the interlocutory court gave the
parties the opportunity to make comments in this context and set the loss at USD 1.2 million and
that taking into account interest and costs Aardvarks claim against [Owners] shall therefore,
taking into account interest and costs be estimated at USD 1.4 million . On 3 April 2009 a
Guarantee was issued by the Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ (Holland) NV in the sum of
USD 1.4 million (a copy of the guarantee is in the trial bundle).
5. On 23 May 2009 Beatles issued an application for an order for sale.

6. On 15 July 2009 a hearing took place before the District Court of Rotterdam and by a
judgment handed down on or about 24 July 2009 the Court upheld the arrest and granted
an order for sale. Aardvark brought an appeal by writ on 21 August 2009 to suspend
enforcement of the sale but they were unsuccessful.
7. By a contract of sale dated 25 August 2009 Beatles sold to A B Buyers the cargo for USD
1,695,752.38 and the proceeds are currently held with the Dutch Court.
8. The Dutch courts awarded the following costs:
(1) In a judgment dated 24 July 2009 the District Court of Rotterdam ordered at
paragraph 5.5 that Aardvark should pay the costs of this procedure since its claim
has been rejected. It then assessed the costs at Euro 262 for disbursements and
Euro 816 for legal fees.
54
(2) In relation to the sale of the goods the Court ordered that there be no costs
awarded because it was not not opportune in this procedure, also taking account of the
order of costs in the injunction proceedings related to this application proceedings.
(3) In relation to the appeal the Court of Appeal ordered that Aardvark pay the costs
of the proceedings in the cross appeal estimated on the side of Owners at Euro
1341 in lawyers fees and on the side of Itochu to date at Euro 1341 in lawyers
fees. The Court also ordered that Itochu paid the costs of appeal to Owners and
Aardvark and assessed the costs due to Aardvark to be Euro 313 in court fees and
Euro 2682 in lawyers fees.
(4) There is a further order of the Court of Appeal which provides that the contested
judgment of the interlocutory court will be upheld and as the unsuccessful party
Aardvark will be ordered to pay Beatles costs of the appeal proceedings which
were assessed at Euro 313 in disbursements and Euro 2682 in lawyers fees.
9. Aardvark have provided copies of invoices showing that they have incurred the following
(although there is no evidence that they have been paid):
(1) Dutch Court fees of USD 138,843.14; and
(2) English solicitors fees in support of the Dutch proceedings (i.e. the fees of
Reynolds Solicitors) in the sum of USD 107,913.12.
55
SINGLE JOINT EXPERT REPORT

I, Kevin Ackroyd, was jointly instructed by Twilight Carriers and Aardvark Limited to answer
the following specific questions. I was not shown or given any documentation relating to this
dispute.
A. Is the price of PFAD highly variable? If so, how does it vary? How is the price of
PFAD decided?
B. Between 20 and 30 March 2009 was there a market in Liverpool and/or Rotterdam for
4,000 mt PFAD that have been subjected to piracy and thus non GMQ/ not suitable to
enter the human food chain? In other words were there nay buyers out there who would
have bought the non GMQ product?
C. If there was such a market what type of buyer would buy such non G MQ product in
Liverpool and/or Rotterdam and for what uses?
D. Taking into account the types of buyers that would buy this quantity of such non GMQ
PFAD, would the market value of the pirated goods in Liverpool be different to GMW
PFAD and/or would their non GMQ status/ unsuitability to enter the food chain affect
their market value?
E. Would the type of buyer who would purchase this quantity of such non GMQ PFAD
expect to buy it at a discount due to its non GMQ status and would he obtain such a
discount?
F. What was the market value of 4,000 m t of such non G MQ PFAD in Liverpool and
Rotterdam between 20 and 30 March? i.e. what would prospective cif Liverpool buyers
have paid for such material in March/ April 2009 and what would prospective cif
Rotterdam buyers have paid for such material in March/ April 2009?
1. I am 53 years old and have been a broker for 25 years, specialising in tropical oils. In this
time I have sourced Crude Palm Oil and Palm Fatty Acid Distillate from the Far East into
56
Europe. My customers have included Animal Feed Fat Blenders, Food Refineries, Soap
Manufacturers, Oleochemical Splitters and Biofuel Burners.
2. I confirm that in so far as the facts stated in this report are within my knowledge I have
made clear which they are and I believe them to be true and that the opinions I have
expressed represent my true and complete professional opinion. I understand my duty to the
Court to give impartial and honest advice within my expertise. I have complied with and
will continue to comply with that duty.
3. Taking each question in turn my answers are as follows:
A. The price of PFAD is broadly linked to its parent material Crude Palm Oil (CPO).
PFAD is the acid faction removed from CPO during the refining process and usually
constitutes about 5% of the Crude Palm. Historically it was considered a waste product
and was usually bought by the Oleochemical industry to produce distilled Fatty Acids.
But during the 1970s it began to be used as a constituent in blended feed fats for
animals. It has also been used for many years to produce low grade soaps. M ore
recently (early 200s) Biofuel companies have bought it as an extender/ cheapener for
burning.
Each of these uses has an influence on the price paid for PFAD. As a very rough
calculation PFAD usually trades as a percentage of the price of CPO. T his range has
varied greatly in the past ten years between 80 and 95% of the CPO price. It is
important however to recognise that due to EU legislation in the past 20 years PFAD for
Animal Feed had a number of quality restrictions. T hese included heavy metal and
Dioxin limits along with traceability. If parcels of PFAD from the Far East failed these
tests then it would be downgraded to technical use only i.e. soap, oleo or burning.
PFAD does not require any additives or other intervention by the vessels crew to
prevent it becoming unstable or unusable.
B. Yes. There has always been a market for non GMQ PFAD in the UK and so there were
buyers who would have bought such product at the end of March 2009. There is also a
market for non GMQ PFAD in Europe (which the technical grade is in fact also
57
produced). In the European market (which is mainly in Holland, Spain and Italy) the
non GMQ PFAD which is produced retails at about 60-70% of the price of GMQ
PFAD.
C. During 2009 this ongoing interest in Liverpool for non GMQ PFAD would have come
from the Oleochemical and low grade soap trade. In Rotterdam the interest would have
come from the Oleochemical and bio-fuels industry.
D. Pirated PFAD would have lost its traceability and consequently not have been
acceptable to the animal feed trade but this would not have affected the price that the
Oleochemical and low grade soap trade (technical use buyers) would have paid for the
goods in Liverpool. The price for non GMQ PFAD in the rest of Europe is about 6070% of the price of GMQ PFAD.
E. Generally as a technical buyer they would be comparing the PFAD price against other
commodities, they would not normally expect a discount in Liverpool due to the
products non G MQ feed status (whereas they would expect a discount due to the
products non G MQ feed status in the rest of Europe). A technical buyer would still
have expected the PFAD he was buying to meet his own standard PFAD specifications.
F. As far as I can remember from looking at my diary for March and April 2009 there was
only GMQ PFAD available on t he open market in Liverpool. If there were also non
GMQ product available I would have normally have expected UK technical buyers to
buy it at the same price as the GMQ product. The PFAD available in March/ April
2009 was as follows (I have simply called the companies Company A, B etc so as to
preserve confidentiality):
-
On 24th March 2009 company A offered 500mt FOT Rotterdam at Euro 350 per
mt, approximately USD 475 per mt.
Company B offered 500mt at Euro 345 per mt FOB Rotterdam, approximately

USD 468 per mt
Company C offered 500mt at USD 650 FOB Rotterdam
On 25th March saw offer at USD 440 CIF Rotterdam for a ship loading in Far
East 1st to 10th April 2009
58
Traded 1,000 m t on 25 M arch Company A to Ardvark Ltd at Euro 345 FOB

Rotterdam, approximately USD 465 per mt.
As the above mentioned cargoes were in Rotterdam a cif buyer in Liverpool would have had to
ship the goods to Liverpool. Freight indication on 25th March for vessels was at Euro 37.50 per
mt loading 2nd to 5th April in Rotterdam (approx USD 50 per mt). There would be insurance at
approximately USD 1.3 per mt to bring the cargo from Rotterdam to Liverpool. Thus the total
cif Liverpool price is about USD 517 per mt.
An alternative means of transporting the goods to Liverpool would have been road tank cars.
These would have charging approximately 40 per mt haulage during 2009 (about USD 58 per
mt). However as there are limited hauliers available, it would be extremely difficult and incur
heavy premiums to transport more than 200mt per week by this method.
As PFAD is not a daily market, the next offers I saw were on Thursday 2nd April
-
Company D offered 800 mt PFAD FOB Amsterdam at Euro 365 per mt (about
USD 485 per mt)
Company E offered 750 mt PFAD FOB Rotterdam at Euro 395 pe r mt (about

USD 525 per mt).
Signed
Kevin Ackroyd
29/10/2012
59
Caspian BV
7-15 Love Lane
Bromborough
23/11/2009
Dear Paul,
Re: PFAD ex TWILIGHT TRADER after release from piracy
Further to our conversations earlier this year I confirm that the contracts we had
outstanding with Aardvark were for oleochemical manufacture and the nature of our
operation at this site where we use Category 2 (inedible) tallow, is such that we were able
to guarantee that no by-products from the processing of the PFAD could enter the human
food chain.
Accordingly we were prepared to take the piracy material provided it tested as perfectly
normal for fatty acid purposes which I understand from you it did.
Kind regards,
Horatio Brigden
Purchasing Manager
60
Delta Limited
Alexander House
Lancaster
25th November 2009

Dear Paul,
Re: PFAD ex TWILIGHT TRADER after release from piracy
Further to our conversations earlier this year I confirm that the contracts we had
outstanding with Aardvark were for industrial soap manufacture and the nature of that
operation at this site, where we use inedible UK tallow, is such that we were able to
guarantee that no by-products from the processing of the PFAD could enter the human
food chain.
Accordingly we were prepared to take the piracy material provided it tested as perfectly
normal for fatty acid purposes which I understand from you it did.
Kind regards,
Geronimo McKegney
Purchasing Manager
61
Dear Twilight Carriers,

Re: Freight rates and PFAD prices
I am told that you have asked Beatles Oils & Fats to provide you with any factual information
available on:
1. The applicable freight rate from Rotterdam to Liverpool during March 2009; and
2. The price of GMQ PFAD during the period March to August 2009.
Beatles Oils & Fats has passed on your request to me. I am a consultant employed by Beatles.
I have made some enquiries and set out the information I have received below. I provide the
information to you as I received it. I am not able to verify the accuracy of the information
myself although I have no reason to doubt its accuracy.
Freight Rates
I contacted RJH Shipbrokers Ltd to enquire about freight rates for March 2009. They estimated
that 4,000 mt palm products Rotterdam to Mersey would have achieved a freight rate between
Euro 24-28 per mt in March 2009.
I also contacted CBC chartering. T hey estimated the rate in March 2009 for a voyage from
Rotterdam to Mersey would be in the region of USD 30-32 per mt.
I was Beatles trade representative at a FOSFA arbitration relating to sale contracts related to
PFAD on board the Chemstar Venus and the freight rate used in the arbitration for a journey
from Rotterdam to Mersey in March 2009 was USD 30 per mt.
PFAD Prices
I asked Pro Palm to provide me with a copy of their chart and prices for the period requested.
The prices are given in USD per mt for Spot plus 2 m onths forward shipped from Malaysia/
Indonesia to CIF Rotterdam. E nclosed with this letter is a printout of the excel spreadsheet
containing this data and the chart depicting it.
Kind regards,
Mark Wiggins
Consultant
Beatles Oils & Fats
62
CHART DATA
395
3.3.09
400
4.3.09
400
5.3.09
400
6.3.09
400.00
9.3.09
420.00
10.3.09
415
11.3.09
400
12.3.09
405
13.3.09
405
16.3.09
410
17.3.09
390
18.3.09
390
19.3.09
430
20.3.09
435
23.3.09
430
24.3.09
425
25.3.09
435
26.3.09
430
27.3.09
430
30.3.09
430
31.3.09
Mar-09
395
2.3.09
470
2.4.09
470
3.4.09
470
6.4.09
455
7.4.09
470
8.4.09
490
9.4.09
490
10.4.09
520
13.4.09
550
14.4.09
550
15.4.09
540
16.4.09
560
17.4.09
560
20.4.09
560
21.04.09
565
22.4.09
565
23.4.09
565
24.4.09
575
27.4.09
570
28.4.09
575
29.4.09
595
30.4.09
Apr-09
440
1.4.09
595
4.5.09
600
5.5.09
630
6.5.09
635
7.5.09
635
8.5.09
575
11.5.09
640
12.5.09
670
13.5.09
670
14.5.09
650
15.5.09
640
18.5.09
640
19.5.09
645
20.5.09
630
21.5.09
630
22.5.09
630
25.5.09
630
26.5.09
645
27.5.09
645
28.5.09
645
29.5.09
May-09
595
1.5.09
645
2.6.09
630
3.6.09
630
4.6.09
620
5.6.09
615
8.6.09
615
9.6.09
615
10.6.09
610
11.6.09
610
12.6.09
600
15.6.09
600
16.6.09
600
17.06.09
590
18.6.09
590
19.06.09
560
22.06.09
560
23.06.09
560
24.06.09
560
25.06.09
560
29.06.09
555
30.06.09
Jun-09
650
1.6.09
550
2.07.09
540
3.07.09
540
6.07.09
520
7.07.09
510
8.07.09
510
9.07.09
515
10.07.09
515
13.07.09
510
14.07.09
520
15.07.09
515
16.07.09
520
17.07.09
540
20.07.09
505
21.07.09
510
22.07.09
525
23.07.09
515
24.07.09
515
27.07.09
520
28.07.09
515
29.07.09
520
30.07.09
540
31.07.09
Jul-09
565
1.07.09
550
04.08.09
550
05.08.09
545
06.08.09
545
07.08.09
555
10.08.09
560
11.08.09
560
12.08.09
560
13.08.09
545
14.08.09
545
17.08.09
545
18.08.09
535
19.08.09
540
20.08.09
545
21.08.09
555
24.08.09
550
25.08.09
545
26.08.09
540
27.08.09
545
28.08.09
545
31.08.09
Aug-09
555
03.08.09
63
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
2.3.09
11.3.09
20.3.09
31.3.09
9.4.09
20.4.09
29.4.09
8.5.09
Cif PFAD Prices 2009
19.5.09
28.5.09
8.6.09
17.06.09
29.06.09
8.07.09
17.07.09
28.07.09
06.08.09
17.08.09
26.08.09
64
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996

AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
AARDVARK LTD
Claimants
And
TWILIGHT CARRIERS
Respondents/ Owners
_____________________________________
CLAIM SUBMISSIONS
______________________________________
1. The Claimants, Aardvark Ltd, are the buyers and receivers of a cargo of 4,000 mt of Palm
Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) carried on board the vessel TWILIGHT TRADER (the
vessel) under the following bills of lading:
(1) On 25 October 2008 the Owners issued a Congen Bill of Lading No. PG 1 at Pasir
Gudang, Malaysia for 496.906 mt of PFAD.
(2) On 25 October 2008 the Owners issued a Congen Bill of Lading No. PG 2 at Pasir
Gudang, Malaysia for 500.494 mt of PFAD.
(3) On 25 October 2008 the Owners issued a Congen Bill of Lading No. PG 3 at
Pasir Gudang, Malaysia for 1998.177 mt of PFAD.
(4) On 25 October 2008 the Owners issued a Congen Bill of Lading No. PG 4 at
Pasir Gudang, Malaysia for 999.970 mt of PFAD.
65
2. The Respondents are the Disponent owners of the Vessel (the Owners). The Owners
sub chartered the vessel to Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd (Beatles) by way of a charterparty
dated 12 September 2008 (the Charterparty).
3. The Bills of Lading were all signed by Agents for and on behalf of the Master. All the
Bills of Lading provided for discharge in Liverpool, Merseyside.
4. The contracts of carriage contained in or evidenced by the Bills of Lading incorporated

the Hague-Visby Rules which materially provided at Article III r. 2 that the carrier shall
properly and carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods carried.
5. The cargo carried under the Bills of Lading was sold to Aardvark by Beatles.
6. A separate cargo of about 14,500 mt of Crude Palm Oil and PFAD (which is not the
subject of these proceedings) was sold by Beatles to another purchaser Ecclestone Oils
and also carried on board the Vessel under different bills of lading.
7. The cargo was sold to Aardvark on CIF Liverpool terms. The contractual delivery port
for both cargoes was therefore Liverpool, UK.
8. The Bills of Lading are on the Congen Form and provide that all terms and conditions,
liberties and exceptions of the Charter Party dated 12 September 2008, including the Law
and Arbitration Clause are herewith incorporated.
9. The Owners were the contractual carriers under the Bills of Lading.
10. While the Vessel was en route to Merseyside it was held off Somalia by Somali pirates
between 15 November 2008 and 13 February 2009.
66
11. Beatles presented the shipping documents for the cargo to Aardvark in or about mid
January 2009.
The shipping documents appeared to be in compliance with the
contractual requirements and so the purchase price was paid to Beatles and the Bills of
Lading were endorsed to the Claimants.
12. After receiving Beatles insurance policy, on 6 March 2009, Aardvark advised Beatles
that they were in repudiatory breach of the sale contract in failing to insure the cargo
under the agreed terms. Aardvark demanded that Beatles repay the purchase price to
them. On receipt of confirmation that Beatles would repay the purchase price they
intended to arrange for the bills of lading to be returned to Beatles.
13. Following a series of messages (which appear in the accompanying bundle) it became
apparent that Beatles were not going to repay the purchase price. As payers of the
purchase price and holders of the Bills of Lading, Aardvark were therefore established as
the clear legal owners of the cargo and accordingly would have to dispose of the cargo
themselves. Given that the vessel was proceeding to Rotterdam to unload the other
cargo, Aardvark considered selling the cargo to alternative buyers in Rotterdam.
14. Aardvark were also prepared for Beatles to organise a sale on their behalf to the buyers
purchasing the other cargoes, as long as they agreed to transfer the sale proceeds
immediately to Aardvark. However, during this period, it became increasingly clear
that Beatles were actively seeking to obtain security for their claim against Aardvark in
respect of entirely different sales contracts. As a result Aardvark were not prepared to
give Beatles the bills of lading.
15. Beatles wrongly claimed that Aardvark had abandoned the cargo and said that
Aardvark should release the Bills of Lading to them. In a message of 20 March 2009
Beatles refused to change the destination in the Bills of Lading to Rotterdam and said
that Aardvark had no entitlement to give them or the Owners orders in respect of the
Cargo.
67
16. On 20 March 2009 Aardvark wrote to the Owners informing them that they were the
lawful holders of the Bills of Lading. Notwithstanding that notification the Owners
discharged the cargo on or about 20-22 March 2009 to Beatles.
17. Aardvark later discovered that on or about 19 March 2009 Beatles issued letters of
indemnity to the Owners asking them to deliver the cargo to them (i.e. Beatles) at
Rotterdam without production of the bills of lading.
18. On or about 23 March 2009 Beatles arrested the cargo as security for their claims against
Aardvark despite this being prohibited by the FOSFA terms governing sales contracts.
Aardvark tried to set aside the arrest of the Cargo in the Rotterdam Courts, but failed at
first instance. Beatles then obtained permission from the Dutch Court for the Cargo to
be sold. This sale has now taken place and, as ordered, by the Dutch Court, the proceeds
are held in the Dutch Court account, pending a decision in the London arbitration.
19. The Court of Rotterdam rejected Aardvarks appeal to set aside the arrest of the cargo.
On 23 March 2009 Aardvark arrested the Vessel in Rotterdam as security for their claims
for damages against the Owners for delivery of the cargo in Rotterdam without
production of the Bills of Lading the sum of Euros 2,375,000. The Vessel was released
against security provided by Beatles on behalf of the Owners.
20. The Owners appealed against the arrest of the Vessel. The Dutch Court of appeal
maintained the arrest.
21. For the reasons given above Aardvark claim damages against the Owners for breach of
their duties under the Bills of Lading and/or in the tort of conversion.
PARTICULARS
(1) In breach of Article III, r. 2 of the Hague-Visby Rules the Owners failed to properly
and/or carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep, care for and discharge the goods
68
carried in that they allowed the vessel to be taken over by pirates and during the
period the Vessel was hijacked no cargo care measures were taken; and/or
(2) In breach of the contract of carriage the Owners delivered the cargo at Rotterdam and
not Liverpool; and/or
(3) In breach of the contract of carriage the Owners delivered the cargo other than as
against presentation of the Bills of Lading; and/or
(4) In breach of the contract of carriage the Owners delivered the cargo to Beatles and not
to Aardvark who were the lawful holders of the bills of lading and the persons
immediately entitled to possession thereof.
22. Accordingly, Aardvark have an unanswerable claim against the Owners for breach of
their duty to deliver the cargo against presentation of the Bills of Lading and at the
correct discharge port.
They equally have an unanswerable claim in the tort of
conversion.
23. For the above reasons Aardvark claim damages for breach of the Owners duties under
the Bills of Lading and/or in bailment for the tort of conversion.
24. By reason of their failure to properly and/or carefully load, handle, stow, carry, keep,
care for and discharge the cargo the cargo went from being GMQ cargo to non-GMQ
cargo which was worthless, alternatively was worth considerably less than GMQ cargo.
In the premises Aardvark are entitled to the difference between the price they paid for
the cargo, namely USD 747.50 per mt and its value at Liverpool on or about 30 March
2009 when it should have been delivered, plus its value at Liverpool on or about 30
March 2009 because it was not delivered i.e. USD 747.50 per mt x 4,000 mt =
USD2,990,000 plus the Dutch court costs (as set out below) namely USD 3,236,756.26.
69
25. Further and/or alternatively Aardvark paid USD 522.50 per mt to buy goods in to sell to
their sub-buyers in Liverpool. Their sub-buyers have since confirmed that they would
have accepted the non-GMQ cargo following the piracy as they were not intended for
the human food chain. Aardvark further incurred legal fees in relation to the Dutch
proceedings. Accordingly Aardvark claim USD 2,329,912.26 plus interest and costs as
follows:
(1) USD 522.50 per mt x 4,000 = USD 2,090,000

(2) Court fees of USD 138,843.14; and
(3) Legal fees in respect of the Court proceedings of USD 107,913.12.
AND the Claimants claim:
(1) USD 3,236,756.26, alternatively USD 2,329,912.26, alternatively damages; and

(2) Interest on a compound basis pursuant to s. 49 of the Arbitration Act 1996; and
(3) Costs with compound interest on costs.
Dated 6 April 2010
70
IN THE MATTER OF THE ARBITRATION ACT 1996

AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION
BETWEEN:
AARDVARK LTD
Claimants
And
TWILIGHT CARRIERS
Respondents/ Owners
_____________________________________
DEFENCE SUBMISSIONS
______________________________________
References to paragraph numbers are to paragraphs in the Claim Submissions unless
otherwise stated.
References to defined terms are to the defined terms in the Claim
Submissions unless otherwise stated.
1. Paragraphs 1 to 4 are admitted. The contract of carriage contained in or evidenced by

the Bills of lading materially provided as follows:
29. Liberty clause

(a)
In any situation whatsoever and wheresoever occurring which in the judgment of
the Owner or Master is likely to give rise to risk of delay or disadvantage to the Vessel
or any part of her cargo, or to make it unsafe, imprudent or unlawful for any reason to
commence or proceed on or continue the voyage or to enter or discharge the cargo at the port
of discharge the Owner or Master may discharge the cargo The Owner may, when
practicable, have the Vessel call and discharge the cargo at another or substitute port
declared or requested by the Charterers.
71
2. The Hague-Visby Rules, to which the Owners will rely to their full terms and effect
materially provided:
Article IV, r. 2
Neither the carrier nor the ship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from
(e) act of war;

(f) act of public enemies;
(q) any other cause arising without the actual fault and privity of the carrier, or without the
fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier, but the burden of proof shall be on the
person claiming the benefit of this exception to show that neither the actual fault or privity of
the carrier nor the fault or neglect of the agents or servants of the carrier contributed to the loss
or damage.
3. Paragraphs 5 and 7 are not admitted as the Owners have no primary knowledge of the
contractual arrangements between Aardvark and Beatles.
4. As to paragraph 6 it is admitted that other cargo was carried on board the Vessel under
separate bills of lading, save as aforesaid paragraph 6 is not admitted.
5. Paragraphs 8 to 10 are admitted.
6. Paragraphs 11 to 15 are not admitted as the Owners have no primary knowledge of the
contractual arrangements between Aardvark and Beatles or the correspondence which is
said to have passed between them.
7. As to paragraph 16 it is admitted that Aardvark wrote the letter set out therein and that
discharge took place between 20-22 March 2009 in Rotterdam. For the reasons set out
below it is denied that this was a breach of the contract of carriage contained in or
evidenced by the Bills of Lading.
8. As to paragraph 17 it is admitted that on 19 March 2009 Beatles issued a letter of

indemnity to the Owners.
72
9. Paragraphs 18 to 20 are admitted.
10. Paragraphs 21 to 23 are denied. It is denied that the Owners are liable to Aardvark as
alleged or at all:
(1) Pursuant to clause 29 of the Charterparty, as incorporated into the Bills of Lading,
the Owners were entitled to discharge the cargo at Rotterdam instead of Liverpool;
and/or
(2) Aardvark agreed to the cargo being delivered in Rotterdam and not Liverpool. The
Owners will rely on the correspondence in this regard; and/or
(3) Aardvark were not entitled to delivery of the cargo having purported to abandon the
cargo to their sellers, Beatles; and/or
(4) Pursuant to Article IV. r. 2 (e) and/or (f) and/or (q) the Owners are not liable for any
deterioration in the quality of the cargo by reason of the Vessel being hijacked by
Somali pirates.
26. If, which is denied, Owners are liable to Aardvark for delivering the cargo to Beatles
instead of Ardvark the correct calculation of damages is the market value of the cargo at
Rotterdam (having been the valid place of discharge pursuant to clause 29 and/or the
agreement referred to above). The best evidence of the market value of this cargo in
Rotterdam at or around 20 March 2009 is the price paid in Rotterdam on 19 March 2009
in respect of the other parcel of PFAD onboard the Vessel which was sold by Beatles at
USD 350 per mt C&F Rotterdam afloat. In the premises any claim is limited to USD 1.4
million.
27. Further and/or alternatively if, which is denied, the cargo should have been delivered in
Liverpool the market value of the cargo in Liverpool in or about 20-30 March 2009 is the
73
price paid in Rotterdam plus the freight costs from Rotterdam to Liverpool, namely USD
380 per mt, USD 1.52 million.
28. In the premises paragraphs 24 and 25 are denied. It is further denied that Aardvark are
entitled to the costs of the Dutch proceedings, the Dutch Courts made the appropriate
costs orders and these should not be revisited. Further and in any event the costs of the
unsuccessful appeal should not be allowed in any event because by definition it should
never have been brought.
Dated 16 June 2010.
74
Moot Dramatis Personae
Companies
Aardvark Limited
Buyers of Commodities including PFAD
ABC Brokers
Vegetable Oil Brokers, employed by Aardvark Ltd
AB Buyers
Buyers of the salvaged sale of PFAD
Aspinall Lewis
International LLP
Incident Investigation, Claims Analysis, Food & Agricultural

Products, Marine & Shipping
Beatles Oils & Fats Ltd
Sellers of Commodities including PFAD
Caspian BV
D&F Brokers Ltd
Commodity Brokers and shippers for vegetable oils and fats
Delta Limited
Dutch Surveyors BV
Cargo Surveyors and International Loss Adjusters
PAI
Certifying body for FEMAS the trade assurance scheme

under which Aardvark are regulated
Paradox Bank
Issuers of Guarantee No. 478
Surveys Inc
Average Agents and Marine Surveyors at Rotterdam
Thomas, Cropper &

Benedict
Consulting mariners, engineers & scientists
Walker Brokers
Charterparty brokers
Individuals
Kevin Ackroyd
Single Joint Expert
Horatio Bridgen
Purchasing Manager of Caspian BV
Geronimo McKegney
Purchasing Manager at Delta Limited
Julia Mynott
Associate Director, Aspinall Lewis International LLP
75
Chris Smith
Solicitor at Reynolds Solicitors, acting on behalf of Aardvark

Limited
Paul Taylor
Aardvark Limited
Ben Thompson
Solicitor at Thompson Puxton, acting on behalf of Beatles

Oils & Fats Ltd
John Walker
Charterparty broker working for Walker Brokers
Mark Wiggins
Beatles Oils & Fats Limited
Tom Williams
Vegetable Oil broker at ABC Brokers
76

IMLAM 2013 Moot Problem PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IMLAM 2013 Moot Problem PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

14TH INTERNATIONAL MARITIME LAW ARBITRATION MOOT

RELEASED 7 DECEMBER 2012

From: Tom Williams [twilliams@abcbrokers.com]

Tom Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

We confirm following business

Commodity: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate Malay/ Indonesian origin@sellers option

Packing: Bulk Outturn Weights

Shipment: October 2008 from origin

T Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

From: Tom Williams [twilliams@abcbrokers.com]

Tom Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

We confirm following business

Buyer: Aardvark Ltd

Commodity: Palm Fatty Acid Distillate Malay/ Indonesian origin@sellers option

Shipment: October 2008 from origin

T Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

From: John Walker [jwalker@walkerbrokers.com]

BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD

TWILIGHT CARRIERS INC

FULL CARGO TO FULL CUBIC CAPACITY VARIOUS GRADES CRUDE AND

1-2 SAFE PORTS/ 1 SAFE BERTH KUANTAN/BELAWAN RANGE INCLUDING

1 SAFE PORT MERSEY

USD 99 PER MT TON ON BASIS 2-1

USD 25,000 PDPR

LAW AND JURISDICTION:

ENGLISH LAW TO APPLY. LONDON ARBITRATION.

HAGUE-VISBY RULES INCORPORATED INTO CHARTERPARTY.

SAVE AS ABOVE AS PER STANDARD VEGOIL VOY FORM. VEGOILVOY 1/27/50

From: Tom Williams [twilliams@abcbrokers.com]

Tom Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

T Williams (Vegetable Oil Broker)

Notify address BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD, 1

PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE,

Freight payable as per

FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PER

Bill of Lading No.

Vessel MT TWILIGHT TRADER

Port of loading PASIR GUDANG, MALAYSIA

Place and date of issue

Number of original Bills of

(iii) ....................................................................................as Agent for the Owner*

VEGETABLE OILS sdn bhD

(2) General Paramount Clause

(3) General Average

(4) New Jason Clause

(5) Both-to-Blame Collision Clause

Notify address BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD, 1

PALM FATTY ACID DISTILLATE,

Freight payable as per

FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PER

Bill of Lading No.

Vessel MT TWILIGHT TRADER

Port of loading PASIR GUDANG, MALAYSIA

Place and date of issue

Number of original Bills of

(iii) ....................................................................................as Agent for the Owner*

(2) General Paramount Clause

(3) General Average

(4) New Jason Clause

(5) Both-to-Blame Collision Clause

VEGETABLE OILS sdn bhD

Notify address BEATLES OILS & FATS LTD, 1