## Facts

- Mobil Shipping and Transportation Company (Mosat) time-chartered the M/T *Alsterstern* from Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd. to carry lubricating oil from Europe to Hong Kong via Singapore.
- The charter required that the vessel “shall be in good working order and condition and in every way seaworthy and fit for the carriage of the cargo” throughout the voyage.
- After partial discharge in Singapore, the *Alsterstern* suddenly lost power while shifting berths and allided with a discharge berth.
- The allision caused significant hull damage, including a roughly 30-foot gash and a roughly 33-foot indentation in the outer hull above the waterline.
- A classification society surveyor inspected the vessel and stated it could proceed to Hong Kong only if it sailed at the safest possible speed, in favorable weather, and with monitoring of the hull damage.
- The crew, believing the power failure was caused by a broken tachometer (later found incorrect), “jury-rigged” the electrical system to run off the emergency generator.
- Wonsild advised Mosat the vessel was ready to proceed based on the surveyor’s conditional approval and weather forecasts.
- Mosat determined the vessel was not fit for the Hong Kong leg given the hull damage, the improvised electrical arrangement, and the pollution risk associated with lubricating oil, and directed discharge of the remaining cargo in Singapore.
- Mosat sued for breach of the charter’s seaworthiness warranty; after a bench trial, the district court ruled for Mosat and awarded damages; Wonsild appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the charter language imposed a continuing warranty of seaworthiness and fitness for the cargo throughout the voyage, including after the Singapore allision.
2. Whether the vessel’s condition after the allision—hull damage, improvised electrical measures, and reliance on favorable weather and monitoring—rendered it unseaworthy and unfit to carry lubricating oil to Hong Kong.
3. Whether the district court erred in finding breach and awarding damages, including in its treatment of conditional classification-society approval.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment for Mosat.
- The court held the charter created a continuing obligation that the vessel remain “in every way seaworthy and fit for the carriage of the cargo” throughout the voyage.
- The court upheld the finding that the vessel was not seaworthy for the Hong Kong leg after the allision.
- The court agreed that conditional classification approval was relevant but not dispositive of seaworthiness under the charter warranty.
- The court concluded the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and supported liability and damages for breach.

## Legal Principles

- Charterparty language can impose a continuing seaworthiness obligation when it requires the vessel to “shall be” seaworthy and fit for the cargo throughout the voyage, not merely at commencement.
- Seaworthiness is assessed in relation to the intended voyage and the cargo carried; fitness may require a higher standard where cargo presents heightened pollution or safety risk.
- A vessel may be found unseaworthy where it can proceed only under restrictive conditions (reduced speed, favorable weather, special monitoring) and relies on temporary or improvised repairs affecting essential systems.
- Classification-society survey conclusions are evidence of condition and fitness but do not control the contractual seaworthiness inquiry or override the court’s assessment under the charter warranty.
- Appellate review defers to trial-court fact findings absent clear error; when supported findings establish unfitness under the warranty, a breach determination and damages award will be upheld.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the time charter required the *Alsterstern* to remain seaworthy and fit for carrying lubricating oil throughout the voyage, and that the post-allision condition—substantial hull damage, a jury-rigged electrical configuration after a sudden power loss, and fitness dependent on favorable weather and monitoring—breached that continuing warranty, justifying Mosat’s refusal to proceed and recovery of damages.


Mobil Shipping & Transportation Co. v. Wonsild Liquid Carriers Ltd., 190 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 1999)