The allocation of liability, in which each party, regardless of its fault, is responsible for its own property and personnel, has always been a cornerstone of Towcon and Towhire. The updated agreements maintain this division of responsibility, but provide more clarity and improve some of the clauses. These maritime towing agreements are widely used in the offshore industry. The latest versions of the agreements were published in 2008, so the purpose of this revision was to reflect changes in business practices and legal developments. Here is a summary of the changes made to Towcon, the most widely used of the two most relevant agreements for the offshore industry: TOWCON is a flat-rate maritime towing agreement. It is not intended for use in port towing. The latest edition of this contract is TOWCON 2021. ”I think the whole clause indicates that the exceptions are limited to a period during which the smuggler`s owner does something or does nothing in the actual performance of the contract and does not apply for a period during which, as in this case, he has stopped doing anything, even for a while, and left the fulfillment of his duty to someone else. In other words, I believe that the exception extends to a delay in the actual performance of the obligations arising from the contract and not to an unjustified delivery of those obligations to someone else for performance. On January 25, 2021, the BIMCO Documentation Committee adopted updated versions of the Towcon and Towhire towing contracts. Towcon 2021 and Towhire 2021 will be released soon. However, as noted above, paragraph 18(d) is intended to give the owner of a ship the opportunity to recover certain insurance premium costs from tenants related to the transit of ice. According to Article 27, the smuggler may also claim additional insurance costs related to piracy (e.g.
B, loss of rental during the war, K&R maritime) from tenants. Therefore, Tugowners could consider adding a reference to Articles 18(d) and 27(d)(iii) to the above text ”(with the exception of paragraph 15(c))” in order to avoid arguments that such claims could be hindered by Article 22. Under TOWCON 2008, the liability and indemnification obligations are found in Article 25. The tractor is responsible for: Home Contractual Issues TOWCON 2008 – Knock-for-Knock – Is the tractor`s exclusion of liability absolute? In 2021, there were two new versions of the BIMCO offshore forms standard, with the new TOWCON/TOWHIRE and BARGEHIRE forms published earlier this year. Teare J. (”J Teare”) accepted the lessee`s argument that a smuggler cannot be held liable for every conceivable violation, noting that protection is available only ”as long as tugboat owners actually meet their obligations under toWCON, but not to the required standard” [para. 116]. Interruptions to a towing service are frequent. In all these cases, the obligation of the tug is the same: return to the tug as soon as possible, reconnect the tow line and resume and complete the towing process. If this is not possible or if the circumstances of the interruption of the contract are such that the service cannot be provided or taken into consideration, the tug may not leave the tug until it is in a safe place [paragraph 2.54]. In addition to the references to war risk insurance in section 23, the form includes a new war risk clause in section 26, which is better suited to how those risks would occur in tug-of-war and towing scenarios. Unlike TOWCON 2008 (which included a provision on catch-all control and ”other risks”), piracy was separated from war risks in its own Article 27, with infectious and contagious diseases also being moved to a separate section of Article 28.
In this edition of our Marine Customer Advisor, Alex McCooke, Claims Union Manager at Shipowners P&I Club in London, offers his perspective on some of the key revisions to the TOWCON/TOWHIRE contracts, which aim to increase the efficiency of the wording and ensure that the forms keep pace with current business practices. The Renter shall indemnify the tractor against any liability reasonably compromised as a result of a third party or a claim of a third party arising from such loss or damage. A violation that falls outside an exception clause is not a modern concept. In A Turtle, Teare J. referred to The Cap Palos [1921] P 458 and a passage on Lord Sterndale MR`s appeal which reads as follows: Knock-for-Knock clauses are intended to be used in commercial contracts if the parties intend to be liable for loss or damage to their own property and for any liability to third parties. regardless of any fault between the Contracting Parties. This blog examines whether the tug can be released from any liability to the lessee under English law, regardless of the circumstances and nature of the tugboat`s breach. Compensation is broad and covers all the usual areas that should be dealt with in the context of blow-for-blow compensation: personnel, property and responsibilities of third parties. Over the years, however, it has been argued that there is another group of liabilities that may not be adequately allocated according to this formulation, namely recovery costs. ”The compelling obligation of the tugboat, imposed by customary law, is to remain with the tug and persevere in the completion of the towing service.” [see paragraph 2.53]. In A Turtle, Teare J. found that the tug did not commit any offence when it separated from the tug because the master tug feared for the safety of the tug while it was still connected to the tug; in circumstances where the tug was short of fuel or was immediately in front of it […].