When you receive an e-mail circular "warning" where alledgedly fraud is blaimed.

There are sometimes “warnings” circulated via e-mail in our industry, where stories are told how others have fooled around and did not pay agreed freight, demurrage or commissions, etc.

  • My thinking always: is this genuine?
  • What would the counter-part have to say?

Our last feature on how arbitrary words in contracts can be misused, we raised the “ex aequo et bono” principle.

Ideally parties mutually conclude a contract as the parties roughly know the interest and strategy the other is following and values their expertise. Influences (and there are many in the maritime economy!) from outside make complex contracts necessary and are not just a to-do list.

Things can go wrong for example:

  • CATEGORY 1: Default on payment: One party for example could use their power over the other and just not pay (would then invent a story why, but the result remains). Their interest to resolve is next to nothing. Here it is understandable the wish of a party to “black mark” the opponent to warn on such fraud.
  • CATEGORY 2: Default on terms: A controversal discussion on certain understanding of defined rules is stretched at length and stops constructive work together.
  • CATEGORY 3: Default on performance: Incompetent efforts of workmanship.
  • CATEGORY 4: Misunderstandings
  • CATEGORY 5: Default by chance: Mishaps, catastrophic events, breakdowns etc

The Maritime Trust Platform can help to resolve issues – privately, confidentially and efficiently!

The initiator has to enter the fixture, rates the business on upto six features, the counterpart receives an invitation (with login details), private and confidential (P&C) can be selected. The fixture in question must be selected, then the issue described in 1.000 words (docs and fotos can be uploaded). The parties exchange arguments in 2 rounds how they see their flip side of the coin. Each round has to be supplemented with a resolution proposal. The initiator can then either mark the claim as “resolved” or send the claim to a polling amongst the members (and yet the parties stay anonym to the members).

Here we have the flip side of a coin!

It is only fair that each party have their say and raise arguments why things went into a fight.

Now I would feel better to listen to a “warning” circular, as transparently a claim got discussed.

And the “blaimed” party has a chance to put things into the right perspective, which is invaluable to show the real effort to gain the trust of the market!

Are you “allowed” to rate your business partner? Yes, read here!

View a detailed presentation of the Maritime Trust Platform here.

———————

We have been part of a feature in the recent “Project Cargo News Weekly” by Bo H. Drewsen:

In our blog section we have published the following toppics:

About the MTP:

Maritime Industry from a different point of view: