It is not infrequent to see in “Gencon” charters the clause “time lost waiting for berth” amended by crossing off the printed words “loading time” (as well as of course “discharging time”) and by substituting them with the typewritten words “laytime”.

The purpose of this article is to make some considerations over such an amendment.

This change is not as casual and innocent as it may seem. It represents a practical attempt by the charterers to get out of the strict boundaries wherein they are now trapped, in the light of the principles affirmed all through from The Radnor to The Loucas N.

This situation has been described in a very realistic way by Mr. Donald Davies in his valuable opening article in the first edition of this publication. He wrote that due to the combined effect of The Johanna Oldendorff and of The Loucas N., the shipowners are in a strong position, and from such present legal position they will derive considerable benefit. According to Mr. Davies the only way in which charterers can remedy this situation is to take a case to the House of Lords in the hope of getting The Loucas N. overruled.

When Mr. Davies wrote his article, The Darrah judgment ([1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 435) had not yet been issued. Now, after The Darrah, his conclusions seem more realistic than ever. I have heard that The Darrah is now under appeal, and maybe this is a way to the House of Lords that charterers may try to follow. It is not, however, the only way they have tried.

I am precisely referring to the above described practice of altering the “time lost” clause. In other words, if the law on the “time lost” clause could not so far be changed, charterers may alternatively try to change the clause instead.

We can see, in practice, that charterers invoke the above amendment to give the “time lost” clause a different meaning or different effects than those it would have in its standard wording.