Menu:
Filepath: Intertanko / News Desk / Press Releases / Year 1999 / Y2K Clauses - The Dangers of Promising too Much Friday, September 10 2010



Forgot password?

Issues
Air emission/Annex VI
Air emission/GHGs
Bunkers
Chemical
Environment
Clarifying China’s marine pollution regulations effective from 1 March 2010 Seventh annual shipping industry Tripartite meeting in Beijing IMO acts on marine noise pollution and ship strikes on whales Whale and Cetacean Conservation USCG Environmental Awareness Sewage Regulations VECS (Vapour Emission Control Systems) Environmental Projects Environmental Organisations Environmental Bulletins IMO Meeting Papers North American Issues Pollution Prevention Air Emission Antifouling paints Reception Facilities Ballast water
Human Element
Insurance
Legal and Documentary
Anti-trust/Competition Law Case Summaries
Achilleas – House of Lords gives certainty on damages for late redelivery Acina - Shelltime 4 Afrapearl – Court of Appeal reverses first instance decision 'Alaska' - New York Arbitration 'Alsternstern' - The more hazardous the cargo, the more difficult to show seaworthiness Ambor/Once (the) - time charter - last voyage - Shelltime 4, Clause 19 considered Aniara - Charterers may cancel if tendering improper Archimidis – decision of the English High Court and Court of Appeal Asbatankvoy Clause 8 - New York arbitration Cape Horn - guarantee on behalf of charterers’ holding company Count (the) - High Court - safe port warranty Diamond Park and Emerald Park – vetting issues discussed Doric Pride – vessel detained by U.S. authorities Elli and Frixos – decision of the English High Court Front Commander - Court of Appeal decision Golden Victory - House of Lords - assessment of damages Halki - Arbitration Clause - Construction - Application for stay of proceedings Halki - Case law update - Court of Appeal decision 'Happy Day' - Allows owners' appeal and restores the award of the arbitrators 'Happy Day' - Glencore Grain Limited v Flacker Shipping Limited Happy Day - NOR 'Hill Harmony' - Court of Appeal upholds High Court decision on master's right to choose the route Hill Harmony - House of Lords - Master cannot ignore charterer's order on to the route to be taken - Court of Appeal Kriti Akti – Court of Appeal affirms High Court decision – Shelltime 3 – length of charter Li Hai – withdrawal from hire Liepaya - Recent English case law: Failure to give adequate notice of redelivery Loss not in parties’ contemplation Marika M - Whether vessel off-hire during period of repair Masters can decide route – recent decision of the English High Court Motis Exports - Court of Appeal upholder High Court decision - forged Bill of Lading New York arbitration decision – Asbatankvoy – foreseeability Nikmary - English Court of Appeal decision Obo Venture - Claims Clause Panalpine - What if English law had applied ? Paragon – unenforceable penalty for late redelivery Peter Schmidt - Asbtatankvoy - Validity of NOR Peter Schmidt - Demurrage/laytime recent case law English Commercial Court Protank Orinoco - Cargo Retention Clause Ruhr Ore - Recent New York Arbitration decision - lightering/crew rest periods Sabrewing - Demurrage Time Bar Clauses Seaflower - High Court - Rights of cancellation under vetting clause Stolt Spur - Vessel under multiple charters Voltaz - Whether demurrage claim time barred
Charter Party Advice Charter Party forms Charterers Clause EU Ship Source Pollution Directive litigation INTERTANKO Chartering Publications INTERTANKO Model Clauses INTERTANKO’s Freight and Demurrage Information Pool Law of the Sea: the challenge of unilateral measures v. uniform rules London Arbitration New ‘At A Glance’ Guide to pollution legislation Questions & Answers - various charterparties Tanker Chartering Seminars Useful links Washington State litigation
Marine safety
Navigation
Phase out
Piracy
Ports and Terminals
Research and Projects
SECA
Security
Abbreviations related to security Access of public authorities, emergency response and pilots Common approach by Round Table partners Company Security Officers (CSOs) – guidelines on training and certification Compliance on 1 July 2004 Continuous Synopsis Record (CSR) Crew Visas Declaration of Security (DOS) European Union Excessive terminal and crew restrictions Global integrated shipping information (GISIS) database IMO guidance for implementation of the ISPS Code Interface with FPSO/FSUs Interim certification INTERTANKO involved in piracy awareness training initiative in the Philippines INTERTANKO Model Clauses INTERTANKO Security Bulletin INTERTANKO to share security information with U.S. Coast Guard ISPS Code requirements for exercises Joint industry feedback form on maritime security Joint industry submissions to MSC79 Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) Maritime Security into STCW Minimum requirements for the issue of certificates of proficiency for SSOs Navigation and Vessel Inspection Circulars (NVICS) North American Issues Obligation to notify flag states when exercising control and compliance measures Seafarers’ Identity Documents (SIDS) Security cost reflected in the 2006 Worldscale schedule Security included in STCW Convention Ship Security Alert System (SSAS) Ship security officer (SSO) Shore leave and access to ships Special Purpose Ships (SPS) Submission of vessel/facility security plan under MTSA Suppression of Unlawful Acts (SUA) – new protocols adopted The final rule Timely ISPS Code compliance U.S. standardises ID requirements for officials accessing vessels or facilities US ports - security status USCG USCG releases Port Security Advisory on port facility security in Haiti Voluntary self-assessment by SOLAS Contracting Governments and port facilities Voluntary self-assessment checklist for Companies and CSOs
Technical
IACS CSR tracking database goes on line Protective coatings of dedicated seawater ballast tanks required in all types of ships and double-sided skin spaces of bulk carriers Means of Access INTERTANKO Model Clauses Technical Projects IMO Meeting Papers USCG INTERTANKO/OCIMF/Class Discussions North American Issues Bunkering - general Bunker Alerts Air Emissions Tank Level and Pressure Monitoring (TLPM) Systems Tanker Specification Awareness Guide Transparency Protection of Bunker Tanks FPSOs and FSUs - MARPOL Annex I Requirements Goal Based Standards Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) Newbuilding Standards: Extended guarantee/net-scantlings/corrosion margins Generic vs. ship specific corrosion allowances for existing ships Coating on cargo tanks
TOTS - An Introduction & Frequently Asked Questions
Vetting & Port State Control
Worldscale
 
Regions
Asia
Europe
North America
 
Benchmarking
Vessel Inspection Questionnaire (VIQ)
TMSA2
Crew & Officer Retention
Lost Time Indicator (LTI)
 
Databases
Confidential Accident Reporting Platform (CARP)
Human Element Landscape Database
Inspection Feedback Databases
Port Information
Questionnaire 88
STS Database
Terminal Vetting Reports & Terminal Satisfaction Sheets
 
Various
Annual Events
Committees, councils and regional panels
IMO submisssions
Intertanko Presentations
Intranet (Staff Only)
Maritime Industry Knowledge Centre
Poseidon Challenge
Tanker Issues A-Z
Weekly NEWS
 
 
Mail present page to a friend Print present page

Y2K Clauses - The Dangers of Promising too Much
Published: 16 September 1999 00:00
Updated: 18 July 2006 15:11

For some time clauses dealing with possible Y2K problems have been appearing in the market. INTERTANKO is concerned that some clauses require guarantees that an operation is Y2K-compliant. The problem is that in practice it is nearly impossible for any business to know that they are indeed 100% Y2K-compliant. In an article in INTERTANKO’s September 1999 Tanker Charter Party Circular the Association has highlighted the dangers of giving guarantees that cannot be fulfilled when it comes to Y2K conformity clauses. The Association wrote:

Y2K COMPLIANCE CLAUSES – THE DANGERS OF PROMISING TOO MUCH

The Y2K problem embraces several date problems and also the functioning of many products and machines that depend on programmed electronics for their correct operation. The critical dates include 1 January 2000 and 29 February 2000. Charterparty clauses started appearing in the market more than a year ago. Y2K is another example of an issue that is given special treatment in charterparties as opposed to reliance on the more general clauses that already cover this issue. We have seen the same approach taken with ISM.

Typically, owners will have to exercise due diligence to keep their vessel seaworthy and be in every respect fitted for the voyage. This obligation clearly encompasses taking reasonable steps to ensure that the vessel will not suffer any Y2K-related problems. Taking such steps is an important safety measure, which applies to all sectors of the maritime business, whether it is from the vessel’s or from the shore’s side. To combat the Y2K problem businesses have had to implement Y2K programmes to ascertain which systems are likely to be affected and to take remedial steps to ensure that neither the performance nor the functionality of the equipment will be affected by the problem.

It is generally recognised that no one can state confidently that their operation is one hundred per cent Y2K-compliant yet there are clauses that require owners to warrant or guarantee compliance as opposed to exercising due diligence or taking reasonable steps to ensure compliance. Since the Y2K problem affects both vessels and shore facilities alike, it is not unreasonable for a clause to include obligations on both sides to therefore ensure that the clause is balanced. For some time now INTERTANKO has supported the use of the BIMCO Y2K clause where a form of Y2K compliance, clause is required. This clause requires both owners and charterers to exercise due diligence in ensuring year 2000 conformity. BIMCO’s clause is supported by the International Group of P&I Clubs. Where owners agree to the more onerous clauses warranting full Y2K compliance they run the risk of incurring very substantial liabilities even though they may have exercised due diligence to ensure Y2K compliance. In addition, owners may not have P&I cover for liabilities arising under such clauses.

Many of the other Y2K clauses in the market are onerous and all such clauses need careful evaluation to consider the obligations they impose on owners and whether they prejudice owners’ rights and P&I cover.

The INTERTANKO membership includes, as Full Members, 270 tanker companies with over 2,000 tankers totalling 172 million tons deadweight. This is equivalent to 75% of all independently owned tanker tonnage worldwide. In addition, there are 295 INTERTANKO Associate Member companies.


For more information contact:
Dagfinn Lunde
Managing Director, INTERTANKO
Phone: +47 22 12 26 50 Mobile: +47 92 49 61 17

John Fawcett-Ellis
Assistant Legal Counsel, INTERTANKO
Phone: +47 22 12 26 81

Search
Quick search
Advertisement