Charter Parties: Voyage, Time, and Bareboat

A charter party is the contract that hires a ship. The name comes from the Latin charta partita, a document torn in two so each party held a matching half, and the document it describes is still the central instrument of the dry-bulk and tanker markets. Everything that follows from a fixture, who pays for the fuel, who carries the risk of a slow port, who answers a cargo claim, who can refuse a war-zone order, is set by which charter party the parties signed and which clauses they amended. The three families differ on one axis above all others: how much of the ship the charterer takes, and therefore which costs and which risks move across to them. The commercial charter party standard calculator frames a fixture against the standard market terms, and the charter hire and off-hire calculator does the daily arithmetic that the period side of the market runs on.

This article is the hub for the voyage, time, and bareboat charter forms. It defines each family precisely, names the BIMCO and industry standard forms that govern each, walks the clauses that carry the commercial weight (laytime and demurrage, notice of readiness, off-hire, speed and consumption, the BIMCO war, sanctions, and bunker clauses, and the Inter-Club Agreement), and shows how the chartering chain and the recap rest on the underlying carriage-of-goods regime, the Hague-Visby Rules. The three deep-dive articles sit one level down: voyage charter party, time charter party, and bareboat charter party.

The three charter party families

The distinction between the three families is a distinction about possession and control of the ship. In a voyage charter the owner keeps the ship; the charterer buys a transport service. In a time charter the owner keeps the ship and the crew but sells the charterer the right to direct the ship’s commercial employment for a period. In a bareboat charter the owner hands the ship itself across, retaining only the title and the right to be paid. Read the three as a single spectrum and the cost and risk allocation falls out of it: the further the charterer reaches toward full possession, the more of the running cost and operational risk moves onto them.

Voyage charter

A voyage charter engages the owner to carry a stated cargo between named ports, or within named ranges, for a freight. The owner provides the ship, the crew, and the bunkers, and the owner bears the voyage costs: fuel for the laden and ballast legs, port charges and disbursements at load and discharge, and canal dues where the routing transits Suez or Panama. The charterer’s core obligation is to provide the agreed cargo and to pay the freight, which is usually quoted per metric tonne of cargo in dry bulk or as a Worldscale percentage in tankers. The owner’s commercial exposure is the voyage estimate: if the ports run slow or bunkers spike, the owner absorbs it, because the freight is fixed at the fixture.

The pressure point in a voyage charter is time in port, and the charter party prices it through laytime and demurrage. The owner allows the charterer an agreed quantity of laytime to load and discharge; time used beyond that allowance puts the ship on demurrage, a daily sum the charterer pays the owner as liquidated damages for detaining the ship. Where the cargo work finishes inside the laytime, some charters pay the charterer despatch, usually at half the demurrage rate, for the time saved. The whole accounting depends on a valid notice of readiness and on which port-time events count, which is why laytime and demurrage carry their own articles. The charter bunker adjustment calculator handles the fuel side of the voyage estimate that the owner is carrying.

Time charter

A time charter hires the ship for a period, a few months, a year, or several years, at a daily rate of hire. The owner crews, maintains, insures, and navigates the ship; the charterer directs where it trades within agreed limits and pays the voyage-variable costs. So the bunkers, port charges, canal dues, and cargo-handling costs sit with the charterer under a time charter, while the owner keeps the running costs (crew wages, stores, lubricating oil, maintenance, hull and machinery insurance) and the capital cost. Hire runs continuously from delivery to redelivery and is payable in advance, typically every fifteen days or monthly, and a charterer who fails to pay punctually exposes the charter to withdrawal of the ship. The charter withdraw unpaid hire calculator frames the financial consequence of a late hire payment that triggers a withdrawal notice.

Because the owner keeps the ship working but the charterer pays for the working, two clauses do most of the commercial work in a time charter. The off-hire clause stops hire when the ship cannot perform through a defined cause, breakdown, deficiency of men, drydocking, detention, so the charterer does not pay for time the owner’s ship is not earning. The speed and consumption warranty fixes what the charterer is buying: a stated speed at a stated daily fuel burn in defined weather, with the owner answerable in damages if the ship underperforms. These are treated in off-hire and performance claims and in charter party speed and consumption warranties. The chart off-hire calculator and the charter off-hire deductible calculator compute the hire suspension and the permitted deduction.

Bareboat or demise charter

A bareboat charter, also called a demise charter, transfers possession and control of the ship to the charterer for a period, commonly several years. The charterer mans the ship with their own master and crew, takes over the technical and commercial operation, and pays every operating cost: crew, bunkers, stores, maintenance, drydocking, and the hull, machinery, and protection-and-indemnity insurance. The owner retains the legal title and a reversionary interest, the right to the ship back at the end of the term, and is paid hire, but the owner no longer runs the ship. In the language the courts use, the master and crew become the servants of the charterer, not the owner, which is the legal hinge of demise: the charterer, as the party in possession, answers for the ship’s operation in a way a time charterer never does.

The bareboat charter is the closest thing in shipping to a finance lease of the asset. It is the structure behind much ship finance, where a bank or leasing house owns the hull on paper and the operator takes it on bareboat with a purchase option at the end, and behind tonnage providers who own ships and bareboat them to operators. Because possession passes, the allocation of cost and risk is near-total: short of the title and the duty to deliver a seaworthy ship at the start, the charterer carries the ship. The standard form is BARECON 2017, discussed below, which offers optional parts for the hire-purchase and newbuilding-financing variants. The bareboat charter party article covers the demise structure in depth.

Who bears which cost: the spectrum in one view

The cleanest way to hold the three apart is by cost allocation. Under a voyage charter the owner pays bunkers, port costs, and canal dues out of the freight, and carries the time risk through laytime and demurrage. Under a time charter the line moves: the charterer pays bunkers, port costs, canal dues, and cargo handling, while the owner keeps crew, maintenance, insurance, and capital. Under a bareboat charter the line moves again, almost to the end: the charterer pays everything operational, and the owner keeps only the financing and the title. A useful test for any disputed cost is to ask which family you are in and how far the possession line has moved; the cost almost always sits on the charterer’s side of that line.

The FIOST line in the cargo-handling row marks a common variation: a voyage charter can be gross terms, where the owner pays for loading and discharging, or free-in-and-out, stowed and trimmed (FIOST), where the charterer takes that cost. The point of the table is the pattern, not a rule for every fixture, because the parties amend the standard forms freely.

The standard forms

Almost no fixture is drafted from a blank page. The market runs on a small set of printed standard forms, mostly published or co-published by BIMCO (the Baltic and International Maritime Council), amended through a recap that records the agreed changes. Using a known form means both sides start from settled wording with a body of case law behind it, which is why a broker quotes a fixture as “GENCON 2022 as amended” rather than spelling out the whole contract. The forms below are the ones a chartering desk meets daily.

GENCON: the voyage workhorse

GENCON is the BIMCO general-purpose voyage charter party, a form drafted to suit a wide range of trades rather than one commodity. Two editions are in live use. GENCON 1994 served the market for nearly three decades and remains in circulation. GENCON 2022 is the current revision, and BIMCO took what its drafting subcommittee called a comprehensive approach: rather than light touches, the 2022 edition addresses more of the issues a fixture raises up front, on the reasoning that many companies without in-house legal teams benefit from a fuller default contract. Among the documented changes, GENCON 2022 incorporates the BIMCO Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013 so far as consistent with the express terms, and it introduces an extension of the cancelling date so that a charterer’s right to cancel on late arrival is structured rather than absolute. The owner’s freight, the laytime and demurrage regime, and the cargo description all sit on the GENCON skeleton, which is why it anchors the voyage side of the voyage charter party article.

A caution on edition discipline: GENCON 1994 and GENCON 2022 are materially different contracts on laytime, cancellation, and the spread of liability, so a recap must name the edition. Quoting “GENCON” without a year is an invitation to a dispute about which terms apply.

NYPE: the dry-cargo time charter

NYPE is the New York Produce Exchange form, the most widely used time charter party in the dry-cargo trades. The current edition is NYPE 2015, produced jointly by BIMCO, the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (ASBA, which holds the copyright), and the Singapore Maritime Foundation. It succeeds NYPE 93 and the venerable NYPE 1946, both of which are still seen on fixtures and in older sub-charters. NYPE governs the hire, the trading limits, the bunker arrangements on delivery and redelivery, the off-hire regime, and the cargo-responsibility clause that feeds the Inter-Club Agreement. The NYPE 2015 time charter form article covers the form clause by clause.

NYPE’s off-hire clause is the reference point the whole time-charter market reasons from, and its cargo-responsibility wording is what the Inter-Club Agreement keys off, so the form matters well beyond the fixtures actually written on it. When a tanker time charter borrows the NYPE off-hire concept, as GENCON 2022 does for the demurrage-on-time-lost idea, it is borrowing NYPE’s settled structure.

SHELLTIME 4: the tanker time charter

SHELLTIME 4 is the standard time charter for tankers, issued by Shell in December 1984 and printed under licence by BIMCO. It was revised in 2003 and has carried later amendments, including wording for the US Jones Act coastwise trade. SHELLTIME 4 is heavily oil-major in flavor: it loads the owner’s performance obligations more tightly than a dry-cargo time charter does, with detailed speed and consumption warranties, continuous performance monitoring across the charter rather than a single delivery snapshot, and strict vessel-condition and certification requirements (Certificate of Fitness, MARPOL, SOLAS, ISM). A tanker owner on SHELLTIME 4 carries a performance standard that runs through the whole period, which is why performance claims are a live issue on the form and are treated in off-hire and performance claims.

BARECON: the bareboat standard

BARECON is the BIMCO standard bareboat charter party, and the current edition is BARECON 2017, which revised BARECON 2001 (itself following BARECON 89). BARECON is built in parts so it can serve both a straight bareboat hire and a financing structure: the core charter terms, plus optional parts for a newbuilding bareboat (where the ship is still being built) and for a hire-purchase agreement (where the charterer buys the ship over the term). Because possession passes under demise, BARECON deals at length with insurance, maintenance standards, the owner’s inspection rights, mortgage and finance provisions, and redelivery condition, the matters that protect an owner who has given up day-to-day control. BARECON 2017 is the form behind much of the sale-and-leaseback and tonnage-provider market, and it anchors the bareboat charter party article.

ASBATANKVOY: the tanker voyage form

ASBATANKVOY is the dominant tanker voyage charter party, originally published by the Association of Ship Brokers and Agents (USA) in 1977 and used across the crude and product trades. It sets the freight on a Worldscale basis, defines laytime and demurrage for tanker loading and discharge, and carries the pumping and heating obligations particular to liquid cargo. A modernized edition, ASBATANKVOY 2025, was produced cooperatively by ASBA and BIMCO to bring the form up to date on electronic bills of lading, a wider force-majeure scope, and alternative fuels; the 1977 form remains the reference most fixtures still cite. As with GENCON, the edition belongs in the recap.

The shape they share

For all their differences, the standard forms share an architecture: a boxed front page (the “boxes”) where the variable fixture details go (the parties, the ship, the cargo, the freight or hire, the laycan, the trading limits), and a body of printed clauses behind it that the recap amends. The fixture-specific data lives in the boxes; the legal machinery lives in the clauses. This is why a recap can be short, it records only the box entries and the clause amendments, while the form supplies everything left unstated.

The clauses that carry the risk

A charter party is a stack of clauses, but a handful do most of the commercial and legal work. They are the clauses parties negotiate hardest, litigate most, and amend most often, and they are where the cost and risk allocation set by the family gets its detailed expression.

Laytime and demurrage

Laytime is the time the owner allows the charterer, under a voyage charter, to load and discharge the cargo without extra payment. It is the rationing of the ship’s port time, and it is defined either as a fixed number of running or weather-working days or as a rate (tonnes per day, or gangs per hatch per day). When the allowed laytime is used up and the ship is still working cargo, the ship goes on demurrage: the charterer pays the owner a daily sum, agreed at the fixture, as liquidated damages for keeping the ship beyond the allowance. Demurrage is not a penalty and not a renegotiated freight; it is a pre-agreed price for detention, which is why “once on demurrage, always on demurrage”, the rule that demurrage keeps running through periods that would have interrupted laytime, holds in most forms unless the charter says otherwise. The detail, what counts as a working day, how weather and shifting and waiting are treated, sits in laytime, demurrage, and reversible laytime and despatch. The charter demurrage calculator computes the demurrage owed on a given laytime overrun.

Notice of readiness

Laytime does not start because the ship arrives. It starts when the ship is an “arrived ship” at the agreed point, is physically and legally ready to load or discharge, and the owner tenders a valid notice of readiness (NOR) that the charterer receives. Each of those conditions is a fighting point. Whether the ship has “arrived” turns on whether the charter is berth or port (a berth charter needs the ship at the berth; a port charter needs it within the port and at the charterer’s disposal). Readiness means holds clean and clear or tanks ready, with the right certificates. A defective NOR, tendered before the ship is ready or to the wrong party, can fail to start the clock and leave the owner carrying days they expected the charterer to pay for. The NOR is the trigger the whole laytime and demurrage account hangs on, which is why owners tender carefully and charterers scrutinize the tender.

Off-hire

Under a time charter the charterer pays hire continuously, so the off-hire clause is the charterer’s protection against paying for a ship that is not performing. The clause lists the events that stop hire: deficiency of men or stores, breakdown of machinery, damage to hull, drydocking, and detention by average accidents or by authorities, among others. When a listed event prevents the full working of the ship, hire is suspended for the time lost, and it resumes when the ship is again fully efficient. Off-hire is a defined deduction, not a damages claim; the charterer simply withholds hire for the off-hire period, which is why precise time accounting matters and why the wording (whether the clause is a “period” clause stopping all hire, or a “net loss of time” clause stopping only the time actually lost) decides how much comes off. The mechanics, including the speed and performance claims that often run alongside, are in off-hire and performance claims, and the chart off-hire calculator computes the suspension.

Speed and consumption warranties

A time charterer pays for the bunkers, so the speed and consumption warranty is, in money terms, one of the most valuable clauses in the charter. The owner warrants that the ship will steam at a stated speed (say 14 knots) at a stated daily fuel consumption (say 30 tonnes of VLSFO) in defined good-weather conditions (commonly winds up to Beaufort 4 and a defined sea state, with no adverse current). If the ship is slower or burns more, the charterer has a performance claim: the owner compensates for the lost time and the over-consumed fuel, measured over the voyage against the warranted figures and netted against the good-weather periods. The conditions in the warranty are doing real work, because a claim is calculated only over the weather windows in which the warranty applies, and disputes over which periods qualify are common. The charter party speed and consumption warranties article works through the calculation.

The BIMCO standard clauses: war, sanctions, and bunkers

Beyond the form’s own printed clauses, fixtures incorporate BIMCO standard clauses that address risks the base form predates. Three groups matter most.

The war-risks clauses let an owner refuse an order that would expose ship, cargo, or crew to war risk. For time charters the clause is CONWARTIME and for voyage charters VOYWAR; both were last fully revised in 2013, with 2025 editions now published in response to changed trading patterns and a demand for transparency on additional war-risk premiums and crew bonuses. The clauses define war risks broadly (war, hostilities, piracy, mining, terrorism, blockade, among others) and let the owner decline a dangerous voyage order, with the additional insurance premium for entering a listed area reimbursed by the charterer at the next hire payment under the time-charter form. An owner without a war clause, or with an old one, can be left arguing a refusal on general law rather than on agreed wording.

The sanctions clauses do the parallel job for trade restrictions. The BIMCO Sanctions Clause for Time Charter Parties 2020 (which replaced a 2010 version) bars the charterer from giving employment orders that involve a sanctioned party or a sanctioned activity, and gives the owner the right to refuse such employment. Where the ship is already on such employment, the charterer must issue alternative voyage orders within forty-eight hours of the owner’s notice, failing which the owner may discharge any cargo already loaded at a safe place. The clause keeps the owner from being forced into a transaction that would breach sanctions, a live risk as listings change constantly.

The bunker clauses allocate fuel responsibility, which under a time charter is the charterer’s. BIMCO’s 2020 Marine Fuel Sulphur Content Clause for time charters made the charterer responsible for supplying fuel compliant with the MARPOL Annex VI 0.50% global sulphur limit that took effect 1 January 2020, and the companion 2020 Fuel Transition Clause handled the one-off changeover from 3.50% to 0.50% stocks. A wider suite of bunker clauses covers delivery and redelivery quantities, sampling, fuel testing, and ECA trading. The charter bunker adjustment calculator works the bunker quantities and prices these clauses turn on.

Ice clauses

An ice clause protects the owner where a nominated load or discharge port can freeze. It typically lets the owner decline to enter or to leave an icebound port, or to wait, or to discharge at a near alternative, without breaching the charter, and it allocates the cost and the time of an ice-related diversion or delay. The clause matters on Baltic, Great Lakes, Arctic, and St Lawrence trades, where a ship that follows an order into closing ice can be trapped for a season. Like the war and sanctions clauses, the ice clause is a documented allocation of an operational risk the parties can foresee but not control.

The Inter-Club Agreement

Cargo claims are where time-charter owners and charterers most often collide, because a receiver who suffers loss can sue the owner (on the bill of lading) or the charterer (on the sale contract), and the loser then looks to recover from the other under the charter. Litigating the apportionment ship by ship would be slow and inconsistent, so the market built a mechanical split: the Inter-Club New York Produce Exchange Agreement (the ICA), first agreed in 1970 and current as the 2011 version (itself amended in later years), which applies to cargo claims under NYPE and Asbatime charters. The ICA apportions by cause. Claims arising from unseaworthiness or from an error or fault in the navigation or management of the ship fall 100% on owners. Claims arising from the loading, stowage, lashing, discharge, storage, or handling of cargo fall 100% on charterers, reduced to 50% where the charter has transferred the cargo-handling responsibility to the owner. Claims for shortage or overcarriage, and all other cargo claims, split 50/50 unless there is clear and irrefutable evidence that the claim arose from one party’s act or neglect. The split keys directly off the NYPE cargo-responsibility clause, which is one more reason the NYPE wording reaches well past NYPE fixtures.

The chartering chain and the recap

A fixture rarely sits between a single owner and a single end user. The market is built in chains, and the charter party family travels down the chain with the rights and duties it carries.

Disponent owner and sub-charterer

An owner can time-charter the ship to a charterer, who then voyage-charters it out to a cargo interest. To the second charterer, the first charterer looks like the owner; the trade name for that intermediate party is the disponent owner. The disponent owner does not own the ship, but holds it on a head charter and disposes of it down the chain, taking the spread between what they pay the head owner and what they earn from the sub-charterer. A chain can run several deep: head owner to disponent owner to sub-charterer to sub-sub-charterer, each link a separate charter party, often on different forms and different terms. The risk of a back-to-back mismatch, where the terms a disponent owner owes up the chain do not match the terms they are owed down it, is a standing hazard of chain chartering, because a liability incurred on the head charter may not be recoverable on the sub-charter if the wording diverges.

The fixture and the recap

A fixture is the agreement to charter, reached through brokers who carry offers and counters between the parties. When the main terms are agreed, the deal is “fixed”, and the agreement is recorded in a recap (recapitulation): a message that sets out the ship, the cargo or the period, the freight or hire, the laycan, the trading limits, and every amendment to the named standard form. The recap is the operative contract from the moment of fixing; the formal charter party document drawn up afterward records the same terms in full. Where the recap and the later formal document differ, the recap usually governs, because that is what the parties agreed when they fixed. A recap that names “GENCON 2022 as amended per recap” pulls in the whole printed form and overlays the listed changes, which is why getting the edition and the amendments right in the recap is the substance of the deal.

Laycan and cancellation

Two recap entries deserve a note because they govern whether the fixture survives. The laycan (laydays and cancelling) is the window in which the ship must arrive and tender notice of readiness: not before the first layday (the charterer need not start before then) and not after the cancelling date (after which the charterer may cancel). If the ship is late, the charterer’s right to cancel is a powerful one, which is why GENCON 2022’s extension of the cancelling date matters: it structures what happens when the ship will miss the cancelling date, rather than leaving the owner facing an absolute right to walk away. The commercial charter party standard calculator helps frame these fixture terms against the market standard.

The carriage-of-goods foundation

A charter party does not float free of the wider law of carriage. Where bills of lading are issued for cargo carried under a charter, those bills are subject to a liability regime, most commonly the Hague-Visby Rules, and the charter ties into that regime through a clause paramount.

Hague-Visby and the clause paramount

The Hague Rules of 1924, amended by the Visby Protocol of 1968 (and the 1979 SDR Protocol on the limitation figures), set the carrier’s minimum duties and maximum liability for goods carried under a bill of lading: the duty to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy, to care for the cargo, and the package-or-weight limitation on liability, together with the catalogue of excepted perils. The Rules apply to bills of lading, not directly to charter parties, but a charter party brings them in through a clause paramount, which incorporates the Hague-Visby Rules into the contract of carriage and, importantly, into the bills issued under the charter. So the owner’s exposure on a cargo claim, and the basis on which the ICA then apportions it between owner and charterer, rests on the Hague-Visby liability framework that the clause paramount has pulled into the deal. Getting the clause paramount right matters because a loosely drafted one can leave a gap between the charter terms and the bill-of-lading regime, the kind of gap that turns a routine cargo claim into a contested one.

Why the regime sits underneath the family

The interaction runs in both directions. The charter party allocates cost and commercial risk between owner and charterer; the carriage regime allocates cargo liability between the carrier and the cargo interest holding the bill. A time charterer who orders the loading and a master who signs the bills can each affect where a cargo claim lands, and the ICA exists precisely to cut through that by splitting the result on cause. This is why the charter party families and the carriage regime are taught together: the family decides who pays for the voyage, and the carriage regime, read through the clause paramount and apportioned through the ICA, decides who pays when the cargo is damaged.

When disputes go to arbitration

Charter parties almost always carry an arbitration clause, naming London or New York most often, with a maritime arbitral body’s rules. Demurrage disputes, off-hire deductions, performance claims, and cargo-claim apportionments that the parties cannot settle go to arbitration rather than to court, and the cost of that process is itself a commercial factor in whether to pursue a claim. A small demurrage claim may not be worth the arbitration spend, which is the calculation behind many settlements. The charter arbitration cost calculator frames the cost of pursuing a charter dispute through arbitration against the amount at stake.

Limitations

This article is a map of the charter party families and the standard forms, not a substitute for the forms themselves or for legal advice on a specific fixture. The standard forms are amended on almost every deal, and a recap can change the default allocation of any cost or risk described here; the table of who-bears-what shows the pattern of the unamended forms, not a rule for a particular charter. Read the recap and the amended clauses, not the generic description, when a real liability is in play.

The form editions stated here reflect the published standard forms as issued: GENCON 1994 and GENCON 2022, NYPE 1946, NYPE 93 and NYPE 2015, SHELLTIME 4 (1984, revised 2003), BARECON 89, 2001 and 2017, and ASBATANKVOY (1977, with a 2025 revision). Older and newer editions circulate, and BIMCO and the other publishers revise the forms and clauses periodically; before relying on a specific clause number or a specific edition’s wording, confirm against the current published form. The clause descriptions give the general structure of laytime, demurrage, off-hire, speed and consumption, and the war, sanctions, and bunker clauses; they do not reproduce the exact wording, and the wording governs.

The Inter-Club Agreement apportionment is summarized by cause; the agreement itself carries conditions on time bars, security, and the evidence needed to shift a 50/50 split, and it applies only to charters that incorporate it (NYPE and Asbatime forms). The Hague-Visby foundation described here applies where the relevant bill of lading is governed by those Rules; other regimes (the Hague Rules unamended, or national enactments, or the Hamburg or Rotterdam Rules where in force) change the liability picture, and the clause paramount in the specific charter decides which regime applies. None of the linked calculators replaces a full fixture analysis built on the actual recap, the amended form, and the figures of the specific deal.

See also

• Voyage charter party: the owner-carries-cargo family, freight, laytime, and the GENCON and ASBATANKVOY forms in depth.
• Time charter party: hire, redelivery, off-hire, and the NYPE and SHELLTIME structures.
• Bareboat charter party: the demise structure, BARECON 2017, and ship-finance leasing.
• NYPE 2015 time charter form: the dry-cargo time charter form clause by clause.
• Laytime: the voyage-charter time accounting that feeds demurrage and despatch.
• Demurrage: the daily detention payment when laytime is exceeded.
• Off-hire and performance claims: hire suspension and speed and consumption claims under a time charter.
• Charter party speed and consumption warranties: the performance warranty and how a claim is calculated.
• Commercial charter party standard calculator: frames a fixture against the standard market terms.
• Charter hire and off-hire calculator: daily hire accounting for a period charter.
• Charter bunker adjustment calculator: the bunker quantity and price side of the voyage and time-charter estimate.
• Chart off-hire calculator: computes the hire suspension over an off-hire event.
• Charter off-hire deductible calculator: the permitted deduction from hire for off-hire time.
• Charter withdraw unpaid hire calculator: the consequence of a late hire payment that triggers withdrawal.
• Charter arbitration cost calculator: the cost of pursuing a charter dispute through arbitration.