A WRC argued that the tribunal departed from established precedent, concerning the definition of “day” and the interpretation of no adverse currents. Due to multiple errors in the performance report and the application of “and/ or” (a point made by the Charterers in their submissions) in the application of the benchmark conditions, the WRC asserts that these affected seriously the tribunal’s decision deviating from precedent and found against the Charterers.
The inclusion of “and/or” (as interpreting the warranted benchmark conditions) addressed a distinct issue from the interpretation of the term “good weather day.” It did not serve as the sole rationale for the arbitrator’s departure from precedent and the ruling against charterers.
Another WRC expressed the view that LA 32/22 was wrongly decided and the wording “24 hours consecutive good weather” was missing from the performance warranty. In essence, WRC, or rather their external legal advisers, argued: “Why not say it?” i.e. 24 hours of consecutive good weather if that was the intention of the parties.
*These are simply brief observations gleaned from handling performance claims, not indicative of the author’s perspective on whether the decision was correct or not or whether the word “day” means, in this context, 24 hours.