Research On The Owner’s Relief Measure When The Charterer Redelivery Ship Early In Time Charter Party Under Chinese And English Law

Due to the previous financial crisis,owners and charterers of time charter party today face great challenges in front of a tough trade market.The continued downturn in the charter price market,coupled with the fact that the shipping market is often oversupplied as a result of the financial crisis,has led to price suppression in a large portion of transactions.In order to avoid the high rent of the original charter party,the charterer breaks the contract,and the owner has a series of disputes over the charterer’s responsibility for redelivery the ship early.In this paper,we will discuss the problems in the situation happened in the English cases,by focusing on Maritime Law and supplementing it with Contract Law,how to deal with the problems in China,so as to make a reasonable interpretation in Maritime Law regarding the owner’s request for the responsibility of the charterer when the charterer redeliveries the ship early,and to protect the owner’s interests.Firstly,chapter 1 discusses the nature of the act of redelivering the ship early and its consequences,it is a repudiate of contract in English law and an anticipatory repudiation in Chinese law,to judge the nature of the act of early redelivery of the ship,leading to the consequences of the breach of contract in English law and the consequences of anticipatory repudiation in Chinese law,in Chinese law,the owner has the right to terminate charter party,the right to request perform charter party,the right to claim damages,the right to refuse to accept charterer’s performance,the right to claim liquidated damages.Since there is no more dispute on the right to accept charterer’s performance and the right to claim liquidated damages,the right to claim for liquidated damages.The owner can claim damages while exercising the right of termination,this chapter focuses on the owner’s right of termination,and the following chapters will discuss the ambiguities of English laws and Chinese law,in terms of the owner choose not to exercise the right of termination and request charterer continues to perform the charter party,or the owner exercise the right to claim the damages.Chapter 2 discusses one of the important remedy in this article is the owner’s right to request charterer continues to perform charter party.This request is not always allowed,there are two important qualifications on the owner’s otherwise unfettered right to affirm contract.,The first qualification is that the owner must be able to continue with its performance without charterer’s cooperation,and the second is that the owner must have a “legitimate interest” in continuing to perform.However,there is no specific and clear criterion for both requirements.This article summarizes and compares the qualifications proposed by the judge in the English case,with the restrictions of the compulsory performance in Chinese law,when the owner request to perform only for hire,there is no limit,when the owner require other benefits,the owner must independently complete charter party,and considers that the qualifications for owner to exercise the right of affirming contract are The “legitimate interest” qualification means continuing to perform is reasonable,rather than the comparison between the hardship the owner’s affirmation and the prejudice caused by restricting the owner to claim for damages,which is only an auxiliary means.However,in exceptional situation,owner’s request of continuing performance for a special purpose should be considered.Chapter 3 discusses another important remedy is the exercise of the owner’s right to claim damages,focusing on the scope and calculation of the owner’s claim for damages.The third chapter focuses on the calculate method of damages,a specific calculate method and an abstract calculate method closely related to the available market,the principle of mitigation and the principle of offsetting,and in generally,credit should not be given for the difference in value of the sale,in the extreme situation,maybe it can be considered.Another part focuses on the general method of calculation that may be shortened by events occurring after the termination of original contract,and the substitute employment ends after the original contract would have ended,there also a loss after the original charter period,and the criteria for determining whether such remote loss should be considered.Through the analysis of the case,this article has made specific explanations to further clarify in the relevant issues.The qualifications on the owner’s request for affirming contract,the general calculation method for the owner’s claims for damages,the reasonableness of the available market,the principle of mitigation and the principle of offsetting decided the scope of damages,after the contract is terminated The emergence of emergencies,remoteness and other aspects.It is also more accurate,clear a when solving the problem in accordance with Maritime Law in our country.