本案争议源于一份航次租船合同，约定受载期（laycan）为7月1日至10日。船东因在先租约无法按期履约，要求将受载期延至7月20日至30日，租家拒绝并坚持原约定。6月28日，船东表示无法保证在受载期内抵达，并拒绝了租家提出的8月7日至14日的反建议。7月2日，租家以根本违约为由解除合同。船东则反诉称租家未支付预付定金，构成违反先决条件。
仲裁地在新加坡，适用SCMA规则，实体法为英国法。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Inability of vessel to arrive within laycan: Determination of the Owner’s Anticipatory Repudiatory Breach and the Monroe Obligation—Singapore Arbitration 2/26
The dispute arose under a voyage charterparty with an agreed laycan of 1–10 July. The Owner could not meet the laycan due to a preceding charterparty. The Owner requested an extension to 20–30 July, which the Charterer rejected, insisting on the original dates. On 28 June, the Owner stated it could not guarantee arrival within the laycan and rejected the Charterer’s counter-proposal of 7–14 August. On 2 July, the Charterer terminated the charterparty, alleging repudiatory breach. The Owner counter-claimed that the Charterer was in breach for failing to pay an advance deposit, alleging it was a condition precedent.
The arbitration was seated in Singapore under the SCMA Rules, with English law applying.
Please see attached file for details.
