## Facts

- A marine fuel supplier arranged delivery of bunker fuel in Singapore to the Panamanian-flag M/V **BULK JULIANA**, which was time-chartered by a German charterer.
- The charterer negotiated and confirmed the bunker purchase on behalf of the supplier’s Singapore entity through a related company’s employee.
- The written bunker confirmation stated the sale was “on the credit of the vessel,” presumed the buyer had authority to bind the vessel with a maritime lien, and rejected any lien-disclaimer stamps on delivery documents.
- The confirmation incorporated the seller’s posted General Terms and Conditions, including a clause selecting **U.S. general maritime law** (and Florida law as a gap-filler) and specifying that U.S. maritime law governed “the existence of a maritime lien.”
- Fuel was delivered in Singapore, and the vessel’s representative signed the delivery notes.
- Payment was due within 30 days but was not made.
- The supplier filed an **in rem** action in federal court in Louisiana to arrest the vessel and enforce a maritime lien under the **Federal Maritime Lien Act (FMLA)**, 46 U.S.C. §§ 31341–31342.
- On cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the district court held U.S. law governed lien existence under the incorporated terms and that a maritime lien arose; the vessel owner appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the incorporated choice-of-law clause selecting U.S. general maritime law controlled the existence of a maritime lien for bunkers supplied in Singapore to a foreign-flag vessel.
2. Whether the time-charterer was a “person authorized” under the FMLA to procure necessaries on the vessel’s credit, creating a maritime lien in favor of the supplier.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit **affirmed** the grant of partial summary judgment for the supplier.
- The court upheld enforcement of the contractual choice of U.S. maritime law (and Florida law as needed), including as to maritime lien existence.
- Applying the FMLA, the court agreed that the supplier held a maritime lien for unpaid bunker fuel.
- The court agreed that the time-charterer’s order for bunkers fell within the FMLA’s authorization framework and that the record did not rebut the presumption of authority.
- The case was **remanded** for further proceedings consistent with recognizing the lien.

## Legal Principles

- Maritime contracts may validly select **U.S. general maritime law** to govern substantive rights, including whether a **maritime lien** exists, even when performance occurs abroad and foreign law would not recognize an equivalent lien.
- Once a choice-of-law clause is validly incorporated into the bunker contract under applicable formation law, U.S. courts will generally enforce it absent strong public-policy or statutory barriers.
- Under the FMLA, a supplier providing **necessaries** (including bunker fuel) to a vessel on the order of a statutorily **authorized person** (including a charterer) obtains a maritime lien against the vessel.
- Contract language placing the sale “on the credit of the vessel,” combined with the FMLA’s presumption of authority, supports lien attachment unless the presumption is overcome by contrary evidence.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held that a bunker supplier could enforce an FMLA maritime lien in a U.S. forum where the bunker contract validly incorporated a clause selecting U.S. maritime law to govern lien existence, and where the time-charterer’s procurement of fuel qualified as an authorized order for necessaries.


World Fuel Servs. Sing. Pte. Ltd. v. M/V Bulk Juliana, 822 F.3d 766 (5th Cir. 2016)