“The Truth About ‘About’: What a London Arbitration Taught Us About Bunker Margins & Fairness in Shipping”

 

⚓ “The Truth About ‘About’: What a London Arbitration Taught Us About Bunker Margins & Fairness in Shipping”

In shipping, even a single word — “about” — can decide who owes whom thousands of dollars.
And yet, many in our industry treat it casually.

Today, I want to share a powerful lesson from a London arbitration case — a lesson every ship operator, chartering executive, broker, and marine superintendent must know.

Because this is not just about bunkers.
It’s about fairness, clarity, risk, and protecting your vessel’s commercial health.

Let’s break it down…
And let’s grow wiser together. 🚢💡

 

1️⃣ The Small Word with a Big Impact: “About” Means More Than You Think

Most of us in shipping casually assume that “about” means “give or take a little.”
But how much is “a little”?

In a recent London arbitration, the tribunal examined a charter party clause requiring redelivery bunkers to be “about same quantities” as on delivery. The owners insisted “about” should mean 2%, while charterers argued for 5% — the widely accepted industry norm.

The tribunal agreed:
👉 Unless otherwise stated, “about” = 5% margin.
Not 2%, not whatever we feel, not whatever suits the moment.
Five percent. Clear and simple.

🚢 Why this matters to us in real life?

Imagine a vessel on a long TC. Weather, routing, drafts, delays, or cargo operations easily shift bunker balances.
No one can hit the exact number on redelivery without a tiny variance.

This decision reinforces a practical truth:
⚓ Shipping needs flexibility — but also fairness.
And “about 5%” strikes that balance.

#️⃣ Hashtags:
#ShipOpsInsights #BunkerManagement #CharteringWisdom #MaritimeLaw #NYPELearnings

 

2️⃣ When Bunkers Fall Short — Which Price Applies? A Lesson in Fair Compensation

Here’s where the story gets even more interesting.
The vessel was redelivered with less MGO and IFO than required. Owners claimed damages using market price at the redelivery port — even though they did not actually buy bunkers there.

Charterers argued:
“Why should you get a windfall? You didn’t even stem bunkers at that port.”

Reasonable argument, right?

But the tribunal ruled otherwise:
👉 Owners were entitled to claim at market price at redelivery, even if they didn’t stem bunkers there.

🚢 What’s the hidden wisdom here?

This protects owners from being under-compensated.
Otherwise, charterers could deliberately under-redeliver bunkers when market prices were high, knowing owners couldn’t claim full value.

It’s a lesson in commercial integrity:
Even theoretical loss must be compensated — because the risk and responsibility were real.

It’s not just about money.
It’s about trust in long-term charter relationships.

#️⃣ Hashtags:
#ShippingLaw #BunkerShortage #CommercialIntegrity #MaritimeInsights #ShipOpsWithDattaram

 

3️⃣ Final Wisdom: Clear Clauses Prevent Conflicts — and Protect Relationships

This case is a gentle reminder to all of us:

📝 Be precise in your CP clauses.
⚓ Understand what “about” truly means.
⛽ Know the correct pricing basis for bunker claims.
🤝 Avoid ambiguity — protect both sides.

Because in shipping, disputes don’t just waste money —
They drain energy, damage relationships, and delay operations.

If we strengthen our contracts, we strengthen our trust.
And when trust flows, operations flow.
That is the true spirit of maritime excellence. 🌊

#️⃣ Hashtags:
#MaritimeLeadership #ShipOperations #CommercialShipping #PositiveShipping #GrowTogether

 

🚀 Final Call-to-Action

If this insight helped you grow even 1% today,
I invite you to like, comment, and share this post so more shipping professionals can learn from real-world cases.

Follow ShipOpsInsights with Dattaram
for daily wisdom, positivity, and practical maritime guidance —
crafted specially for people like you who keep the world moving. 🌍⚓