|
|
Enron Mail |
FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT on 09/27/99 05:35 PM --------------------------- Matthias Lee 09/27/99 08:53 AM To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Anita Fam/SIN/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT Subject: MT Pacific Valour Alan I am forwarding to you the summary of WFW's opinion again. I have included a paragraph on damages recoverable which I missed out earlier. Also. Russell had informed that John Nowlan is travelling in Europe. Vienna, I think. Regards Matt ---------------------- Forwarded by Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT on 09/27/99 09:50 PM --------------------------- Matthias Lee 09/27/99 09:32 PM To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT cc: Anita Fam/SIN/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT Subject: MT Pacific Valour Alan Further to our telephone conversation this morning, I had sessions with Russell, Sheila, Seok Wah and Eric today to get answers to WFW's questions of fact, your various queries as well as their views on ops customs and usage. I also had a telephone conference with Neil and Suzanne of WFW. Below is a summary: 1. The C/P was entered into in Singapore by Russell for ECTS. All Petchem C/Ps are arranged by Russell. I am advised that it is at John Nowlan's instructions. 2. EPTS (Singapore) Pte Ltd are the Owners' agents. We do not at present know the identity of the Owners. WFW will find out from Lloyd's and relevant ship registers. In any case, the Owners would not know the chain of contracts. They would only know the type of cargo (stated in C/P), that the supplier is Hyundai Oil, Korea and receiver is Tuntex Petrochemicals (Thailand) Public Company (stated in the voyage orders 10 Sept). 3. By an e-mail dated 16 Sept, EPTS advised of delays at Yantai because the preceding charterers did not have the import licence ready. EPTS claims that they were not aware of the problems at the time of fixing. We do not know of any other reason for the delay. 4. Delays at Chinese ports (including Yantai) are common and typically for a few days (Sheila : 1 - 2 days, Russell : 3 - 4 days). 5. The clause "subject to unforeseen delays" for ETA fixing is not unusual. WFW confirms that it would, in any case, be implied by law and the point is sufficiently supported by case law. 6. As regards the reference to "expected ready to load" in Suzanne's opinion of 24 Sept, it appears on the front page of asbatankvoy. WFW advises that the legal effect is the same as ETA and requires the Owners to nominate a date which they reasonable expect to meet. 7. Seok Wah advises that the "expected ready to load" clause is rarely filled in (although not unheard of). She was not able to elaborate on the reasons except that it depends on whether the Owners would agree to it if it is at all requested for. She advsies that the actual asbatankvoy form typically arrives more than a month after the deal. At which time, loading is usually complete. 8. As regards laycan coinciding with loading date range, Russell advises that this particular transaction was exceptional although not unusual. Loading date ranges for Petchem deals are typically wide and laycan would fall within the loading date range with some buffer at both ends. In the present case, loading date range (15 - 20 Sept) was almost the same as laycan (14 - 20 Sept). Consequently, there was no "breathing space". 9. "GA/ARB LONDON" and "YA RULES in the C/P stands for "General Average/Arbitration London" and "York Antwerp rules" respectively. I understand the York Antwerp rules deal with General Average. In the absence of an express provision, the arbitral rules would be the general provisions of the UK Arbitration Act (1966). 10. Sheila now advises that the difference in price (including freight) between buying from Hyundai and Enron Petrochemicals (Europe) Company (the alternative source) is USD228,000. The difference in freight alone is USD87,000. Notably, however, the quality description of the product is amended in the supply contract to Tuntex. 11. Neil's advice: (i) Agree entirely with Suzanne's advice. An action against Hyundai is speculative at best. A more realistic action exists against the Owners. I conveyed the answers to questions posed by Suzanne in her opinion. WFW had no further questions at present. (ii) Further explored the issue of whether the Clause "Default ,Termination and Liquidation" in the Hyundai trade confirmation :- whether the definition of "Default" which includes "a material breach" not cured within 10 business days may be construed as an expressed cure period for a breach of loading date range. Neil does not think that it can and loading date range would still be construed as a condition a breach of which entitles termination by the non-defaulting party. (iii) The duty of "reasonable despatch" is continuing and applies for each revised ETA advised by the Owners. Attached for your comments is an executive summary of WFW's opinion based on Suzanne's opinion dated 24 September 1999 and our telephone discussions today. Regards Matt
|