Manual chartering fails quietly
Most chartering desks have no trouble with the fundamentals. They know the rate, the vessel, the fixture, and the delivery window. The problems start after that, once the charter is live and day-to-day exceptions accumulate faster than anyone is actually recording them.
A charter is not just a contract. It is a living commercial record. Every delivery survey, performance warranty, bunker stem, noon report, invoice, notice, deduction, commission rule, and supporting document changes the final cost position. When those records live in separate tools, an email thread here, a spreadsheet there, a charter party PDF in someone's downloads folder, the desk may still feel in control day to day. But that control is fragile, and it breaks at exactly the moment it matters most: when a claim lands.
“Manual chartering doesn't cost you the time it takes to update a spreadsheet. It costs you finding out, after the charter has already moved on, that a claim was never under evidential control in the first place.”
Where charter party money actually leaks: three claim families
Under a time charter, the commercial relationship between owner and charterer is defined by warranties and obligations that are tested continuously: every voyage leg, every bunker stem, every noon report. Three claim families account for the majority of contested value:
- Speed and consumption (performance) claims: whether the vessel achieved the warranted speed on the warranted fuel consumption in the agreed weather conditions. Typically triggered when the charterer's weather routing report shows time lost and over-consumption against the warranty.
- Bunker quality disputes: whether fuel supplied met specification (ISO 8217), and who bears the consequences of off-spec fuel, from de-bunkering to engine damage and lost time. Typically triggered by post-stem laboratory analysis.
- Bunker quantity disputes: how much fuel was actually delivered or remaining on board at delivery and redelivery, and at what price it changes hands. Typically triggered when the bunker delivery note differs from the vessel's own soundings.
Speed and consumption claims: the evidence war
A time charter typically warrants performance in the form "about 18.5 knots on about 55 MT/day IFO, in good weather conditions." Every word in that sentence is a future dispute waiting for a record. "About" is customarily a margin, commonly half a knot on speed and around five percent on consumption, but only if the charter party doesn't define it. "Good weather" is usually defined by wind force, sea state, and absence of adverse current, and performance is assessed only over good-weather periods. "Consumption" is measured from noon reports, engine logs, and bunker soundings, and when the vessel's reports and the charterer's weather routing service disagree, the charter party's evidence clause decides whose figures prevail, if anyone can find it.
The classic underperformance claim is time lost multiplied by the hire rate, plus the cost of excess bunkers consumed. The numbers are simple arithmetic. What is fought over is the inputs: which periods count as good weather, which speed figures are trusted, whether current was excluded, and whether the warranty was continuous.
“The desk that wins a performance claim is rarely the one with the better lawyer. It is the one that can produce, in one place, the fixture terms, the noon report series, the weather data, and the consumption records, internally consistent and time-stamped from the day the charter went live.”
Bunker quality disputes: when the fuel itself is the claim
Under most time charters, the charterer supplies and pays for fuel, but the owner's engines burn it. That split of responsibility makes bunker quality one of the most structurally adversarial areas of the charter relationship.
A quality dispute typically unfolds in sequence: fuel is stemmed and a bunker delivery note issued; samples are drawn at the manifold and sealed; days or weeks later, laboratory analysis flags a parameter outside ISO 8217 limits. By then the fuel may already be partly consumed, commingled, or causing abnormal wear. The commercial questions come fast, and the critical one is often the quietest: was the claim notified within the time bar in the bunker supply terms, which can be as short as 15 to 30 days?
The evidence that decides these disputes is not exotic: sealed manifold samples with chain of custody, the bunker delivery note and stem documentation, time-stamped notification records, and consumption and engine performance records around the stem. All of it exists somewhere in the organization at the moment of the stem. The dispute is lost when, three months later, it exists in six places and agrees in none of them.
Bunker quantity disputes: the numbers that never match
Quantity disputes are quieter than quality disputes but far more frequent. They arise at the stem, when the delivery note says one figure and the vessel's tank soundings say another; at delivery, when bunkers remaining on board transfer from owner to charterer at a charter party price; and at redelivery, when they transfer back, often at a different price, with a "redeliver with about the same quantities" obligation.
At typical bunker prices, a 30-metric-ton discrepancy on a single stem is a five-figure disagreement. Across a chartered fleet and a full year of stems, quantity leakage that never triggers a formal dispute, because no one can prove it either way, routinely exceeds the value of the claims that do.
The economics of claim latency
In chartering claims, time is not just money, it is evidence. The commercial cost of a claim is a function of how late the underlying discrepancy is discovered:
“The desks that lose money aren't always the ones making bad fixtures. Often, they're the ones managing good fixtures through weak records.”
- During the voyage or at the stem: challenged in real time, corrected on the spot. Minutes of effort, negligible leakage.
- At the next hire invoice: deduction raised with records still fresh, usually settled by correspondence. Days of effort, small concessions.
- At redelivery and final settlement: position reconstructed from emails and spreadsheet versions, both sides anchoring to different numbers. Weeks of effort, split-the-difference settlements.
- After settlement, in arbitration: external lawyers and experts re-litigate the record, and time-barred items are lost entirely. Six-figure costs, outcomes driven by record quality rather than merit.
The charter lifecycle as one continuous record
The chartering lifecycle isn't complicated: fixture and recap, delivery survey, active hire period, the redelivery notice ladder, and final settlement. What changes the claims outcome is whether those stages are tracked as one continuous record, or handed from desk to desk as five separate spreadsheets that stop talking to each other the moment ownership passes between teams.
The fixture is where the commercial logic begins; capture it loosely, and every claim that follows inherits the looseness. Delivery starts the commercial clock and fixes the opening ROB position. The active hire period is where most leakage happens, because exceptions move quickly and their financial effect is rarely visible in the moment. Redelivery is a cascading sequence of notices, each narrowing the owner's planning window, that should never depend on one person remembering a calendar. And by the time settlement arrives, the number should already be familiar: a confirmation of a position tracked throughout, not a first reveal.
A spreadsheet can calculate a performance deduction. It cannot enforce a notice sequence, maintain a trusted audit trail across four departments, or stop someone from creating another version. A document repository stores evidence. A chartering workflow makes evidence, in the ordinary course of business.
Two operational scenarios
The underperformance claim: a liner operator has a vessel chartered in on a warranty of about 18.5 knots on about 55 MT/day. Three months in, its weather routing service reports 41 hours lost and 118 MT of over-consumption across good-weather periods on two Asia-Europe legs. The owner rejects the claim, citing the master's deck logs and disputed current periods. Under a manual process, the claim becomes an archaeology project, and it settles at a discount not because it was weak, but because the record was. With performance data captured inside the chartering workflow, the claim is computed continuously during the charter, and the conversation changes from "where did this number come from?" to "here is the record."
The off-spec stem: a charterer stems 900 MT of VLSFO; the delivery note declares 900 MT, the vessel's soundings show 872. Twelve days later, analysis reports catalytic fines above the ISO 8217 limit, and the supplier's terms carry a 21-day time bar now nine days from expiry. Every element of the eventual outcome is generated in the first two weeks; whether it is retrievable six months later, in one consistent record, is what decides who absorbs the cost.
How to know the workflow is working
Not "better efficiency" but operational signals that claims exposure is actually under control:
“The simplest test: can the team explain today's commercial position, including open claims, while the charter is still active?”
- Time between fixture agreement and system record creation shrinks toward zero.
- Performance claims are computed continuously during the charter, not reconstructed at settlement.
- Every bunker stem carries its delivery note, sample references, and quantity reconciliation in one record.
- Quality and quantity claims are lodged inside their time bars, every time.
- Missed redelivery notices attributable to human tracking become rare, then disappear.
- The desk can state today's cost and claims position on any live charter without building a fresh spreadsheet.
Where Solverminds fits
The Solverminds chartering module, part of the LRP liner ERP platform, manages the full chartering workflow across time, voyage, and bareboat structures: charter terms, warranties, and bunker clauses captured from the fixture recap onward; delivery and redelivery details, including ROB quantities and pricing, connected directly to the charter record; speed and consumption tracked against charter party warranties with positions visible during the charter; bunker stems, delivery notes, quality records, and quantity reconciliations feeding the same ledger as hire and settlement; and redelivery notices tracked through the agreed ladder with automated reminders.
The result is not a faster spreadsheet. It is a chartering desk whose claims positions are evidence-backed from day one, because the evidence was created by the workflow itself.
Charter party claims are not decided at arbitration. They are decided months earlier, at the moment the record was, or was not, made.