When Trade Shifts Faster Than Contracts: Rethinking Clause Risk in Bulk Chartering

How Contract Clauses Impact Demurrage

For most charterers, demurrage is treated as a cost to manage, not a clause to question. But in a trade environment where routing is unstable and documentation delays are increasingly common, the fine print of the charter party becomes a primary driver of operational risk.

Some clauses that once felt boilerplate now act as blind spots: quietly transferring delay liability back onto the charterer. These risks don’t just live in legal departments; they show up in port every day.

Here are five clauses that regularly surface in disputes, especially when trade conditions shift faster than contracts do:

1. Laytime Commencement Clause

When does the clock start (and what conditions must be met)?

Some clauses make Notice of Readiness (NOR) contingent on free pratique or customs clearance, delaying the start of laytime until formalities are complete. Others, cut the other way: they allow NOR to be valid even without clearance, which means laytime and demurrage can begin to run while the vessel is still waiting at anchorage. In both situations, charterers face risk: either losing days before time counts or paying demurrage earlier than expected.

• Example – GENCON 2022, Clause 9(b):
  “…the Vessel shall be entitled to tender Notice of Readiness from any waiting place … whether in free pratique or not, whether customs cleared or not. Laytime and time on demurrage shall then count…”
  Read GENCON 2022 Charterparty (PDF)

Hidden impact: Data across several fixtures may show that whenever NOR hinged on clearance (or, conversely, was valid without it), charterers lost one or two days of laytime they thought they controlled. What looks like a “standard clause” may in fact be quietly inflating demurrage bills voyage after voyage.

2. Demurrage Exceptions Clause

What counts as a valid reason to stop the clock?

Most charterparties contain exceptions for events such as bad weather or strikes, but those carve-outs usually apply only during laytime. Once a vessel is on demurrage, the general rule is that “the clock never stops” unless the contract explicitly says otherwise. That means newer realities (such as inspections, customs delays, or tariff-related holds) will still accrue demurrage unless they are specifically written into the clause.

• Example – West P&I Club Guide:
  “An exceptions clause will normally only apply to laytime. It will not protect the charterer after the vessel has come on demurrage, unless it explicitly provides so…”
  Read the guide (West P&I PDF)
• Example – ASBATANKVOY, Clause 6:
  “…where delay is caused to the vessel getting into berth after giving notice of readiness for any reason over which Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.”
  Read the contract (ASBATANKVOY PDF)

Hidden impact: Data analysis may reveal that once a vessel is on demurrage, the clock rarely stops. Charterers who assumed exceptions covered them may discover (too late) that the standard clause does not.

3. Port Rotation / Routing Clause

Are the discharge ports fixed or flexible?

In fragmented trade scenarios, the agreed route may no longer be commercially viable, yet many charterparties still restrict discharge to the ports nominated at fixture, even when conditions make them impractical. Without built-in flexibility or diversion provisions, even necessary detours trigger exposure.

• GENCON 1994, Clause 16(b) – Strikes at Port of Discharge:
  “…the Charterers shall have the option of keeping the Vessel waiting until such strike or lock-out is at an end against paying half demurrage … or of ordering the Vessel to a safe port where she can safely discharge… On delivery of the cargo at such port … the Vessel shall receive the same freight as if she had discharged at the original port … except that if the distance to the substituted port exceeds 100 nautical miles, the freight … shall be increased in proportion.”
  Read GENCON 1994 Charterparty (PDF)
• GENCON 1994, Clause 18 – Ice at Port of Discharge:
  “…Should ice prevent the Vessel from reaching port of discharge, the Charterers shall have the option of keeping the Vessel waiting until the re-opening of navigation and paying demurrage, or of ordering the Vessel to a safe and immediately accessible port where she can safely discharge without risk of detention by ice.”
  Read GENCON 1994 Charterparty (PDF)

Hidden impact: Data across fixtures may reveal that whenever substitution was required, whether due to strikes, ice, or similar disruptions, charterers consistently paid more in freight or demurrage. Yet clauses like these are still carried forward as “standard,” limiting flexibility and amplifying costs just when charterers most need room to manoeuvre.

4. Time Bar for Claims Clause

How long do you have to contest a demurrage claim?

Some charterparties impose tight deadlines, known as “time bars”, giving charterers only 30 to 60 days to present or contest demurrage calculations. These provisions are among the harshest traps in the contract: miss the deadline and liability stands, even if the claim is wrong. In some widely used forms, the limit is fixed at 60 days, meaning that even a single day’s delay (or the omission of one required document) can void an otherwise valid dispute.

• Fortior Law (2023) – Example Demurrage Time-Bar Clause:
  “Any demurrage claimed under this Charter Party has to be received by Charterers in writing with all supporting documents not later than 60 (sixty) days after completion of discharge… Any demurrage claim received later than 60 (sixty) days is to be considered null and void, and it shall be deemed that Owners have waived all their rights in respect of such demurrage claim.”
  Read the full article (Fortior Law)

Hidden impact: Reviewing structured timestamps across voyages may show that valid disputes are consistently lost; not because the delays aren’t real, but because the claims aren’t lodged in time. Without digital tracking, these “silent losses” may remain invisible.

5. Force Majeure Clause

Does it actually cover what you think it covers?

Force majeure is often treated as a catch-all safety net, but not all clauses are created equal. Older forms tended to list only “war, strike, or Act of God,” leaving modern disruptions (sanctions, tariff enforcement, pandemic shutdowns) outside the scope. Even in updated wordings, force majeure usually protects both parties from being in breach, but it rarely interrupts the running of laytime or demurrage. When contracts don’t evolve with geopolitics, neither does your protection.

• BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022:
  “Neither party shall be considered in breach of contract nor liable in damages for delay in or for non-performance of their obligations under this Charter Party, if such delay or non-performance is due to an event of Force Majeure… Where performance is rendered impossible, illegal or radically different … and the duration of the Force Majeure exceeds [x] days, either party may terminate this Charter Party.”
  Read the full BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022

Hidden impact: Data may reveal that even when ports shut down under pandemic protocols or when sanctions froze payments, demurrage still accrued. The clause did its job in excusing owners and charterers from breach, but it rarely stopped the financial meter. Without visibility across fixtures, charterers may underestimate how often this supposed “safety net” fails them in practice.