วารสารวิชาการนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยทักษิณ

charterparty if the shipowner has suffered the loss from the early ending of the charterparty. Therefore, if the charterer uses 2015 version, perhaps there is less chance to miss out on the main issues. Concentrating on the charterers’ standpoint, there are some new clauses which may be of particular interest to the charterer. However, the charterer may be better of excluding some of the new clauses, especially those which try to differ from the common law position for the benefit of the shipowner. For example, under Clause 7 the charterer has to pay for customary along with compulsory pilotages. Alternatively, while the term in Clause 11 provides the certainty on each party obligation, it weakens the position of the charterer as compared to the current common law, and also is no longer restricted in the late payment as mentioned in the previous section. More negatively for the charterer, to claim for underperformance according to Clause 12 is limited to compensation only specified. Moreover, there are lien clause, ballast water exchange regulations, off-hire clause and some other clauses which give the charterer more onus and responsibility for expenses. When considering a new form, this will be seen as generally advantageous to the charterparty form, as the clauses may be a weakness, since it is by general requirement, and not vessel or trade particular. The current rider of the charterer should indicate his specific trade, and may accordingly be more appropriate. Some clauses in NYPE 2015 วารสารวิชาการนิติศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยทักษิณ ปีที่ 6 ฉบับที่ 8 กรกฎาคม 2560 - มิถุนายน 2561 145