GENCON Charter Party Explained (1994 and 2022)

The GENCON charter party is BIMCO’s standard general-purpose voyage charter party, formally the Uniform General Charter, used chiefly for dry-bulk and general cargo. First issued in 1922 and now in its GENCON 2022 edition, it is the world’s most widely used voyage charter form, setting out the owner’s and charterer’s rights over freight, laytime and demurrage. It is the default contract of the dry-cargo tramp trades: where a cargo or a route has no specially approved, trade-specific charter form of its own, the parties reach for GENCON. The form’s own header says as much, describing itself as one “to be used for trades for which no specially approved form is in force.”

GENCON matters out of proportion to its length because so much dry-cargo tonnage is fixed on it. It is a voyage charter party , meaning the owner undertakes to carry a stated cargo between agreed ports for a freight, keeps the master and crew and pays the running costs, and bears the commercial risk of the voyage taking longer than planned only to the extent the charter allocates that risk. That places GENCON in a different world from a time charter party such as NYPE, where the charterer pays a daily hire and directs where the ship trades. Two editions are in live use: GENCON 1994, which served the market for nearly three decades and remains in wide circulation, and GENCON 2022, a full rewrite published for the form’s centenary that changed the risk allocation materially.

This article explains what GENCON is, how its two-part box-and-clause structure works, what the principal Part II clauses do and how their numbering differs between the two editions, why the owners’ responsibility clause is the single most consequential difference between them, how the form evolved from 1922 to 2022, what GENCON 2022 changed, and how the form is used in practice alongside its companion bill of lading, CONGENBILL. It is a guide to the form itself; for the general law of the voyage charter it sits within, see voyage charter party and the wider charter parties overview .

What GENCON is

GENCON is published by BIMCO, the Baltic and International Maritime Council, which holds the copyright and issues the official form. The 1922 original was the work of BIMCO’s forerunner, the Documentary Council of the Baltic and White Sea Conference, and the form has been BIMCO’s flagship contract ever since, the general-purpose anchor of a library that also contains dozens of trade-specific charters. Its short name, GENCON, is a BIMCO code name for the general charter rather than a strict acronym, and the full title, the Uniform General Charter, captures its purpose: a single, neutral, general-purpose contract that any dry-cargo trade can adopt.

Three attributes define it. It is a voyage charter, so the bargain is carriage of a defined cargo on a defined voyage for freight, not the hire of the ship for a period. It is a dry-cargo form, used for bulk and general cargo rather than liquids, which are fixed on dedicated tanker forms such as ASBATANKVOY or SHELLVOY, quoted on the Worldscale scale rather than on GENCON’s lump-sum or per-tonne freight. And it is a residual or default form, intended for the trades and cargoes that lack a specially approved charter of their own, which is why it turns up across minor bulks, steels, bagged goods, project cargo and one-off tramp fixtures rather than in the major grain, coal and ore trades that have their own forms.

Because it is general-purpose, GENCON is deliberately spare in its printed terms, at least in the 1994 edition, and the parties tailor it to the particular fixture by completing the boxes and attaching rider clauses. This is the practical genius of the form and also its main hazard: the printed clauses are a starting point that the negotiated main terms and riders then reshape, so reading a GENCON fixture means reading the boxes, the riders and the printed clauses together, in that order of priority.

The two-part structure: Part I boxes and Part II clauses

GENCON follows BIMCO’s standard boxes-and-clauses architecture, which splits the contract into two parts. Part I is the box form, a grid of numbered boxes into which the parties type the commercial particulars of the specific deal. Part II is the body of pre-printed standard clauses that govern unless the parties amend them. The two parts are bound together by a conflict rule stated on the form itself: in the event of a conflict, the provisions of Part I prevail over those of Part II to the extent of the conflict. That priority is the reason the negotiated terms in the boxes, and the riders that extend them, override the printed text where they clash.

The two editions differ in scale. GENCON 1994 has 26 Part I boxes and 19 Part II clauses; GENCON 2022 has 33 boxes and 38 clauses, roughly twice the clause count and about ten pages longer. The expansion is not padding: it reflects three decades of regulation and practice, the sanctions, security, electronic-trading and cargo-handling issues that the lean 1994 form left to riders, folded into the printed contract.

The Part I boxes carry the whole commercial bargain. In GENCON 1994 they run from the shipbroker and the place and date of the charter, through the owners and charterers, the vessel’s name, its GT and NT and summer deadweight, its present position and expected readiness to load, the loading and discharging ports, the cargo quantity and its margin, the freight rate and whether it is prepaid or payable on delivery, the freight payment terms, the laytime for loading and discharging, the demurrage rate, the cancelling date, the general-average adjustment place, the brokerage, and the choice of law and arbitration, to a final box for additional clauses. GENCON 2022 keeps the same idea and adds detail the modern market expects: the vessel box now also records the IMO number, the classification society and the P&I club; there are separate boxes for the notice of readiness at the loading and discharging ports, separate operational-contact and arbitration-notice details for each party, and an express box selecting the law and arbitration. The 2022 form also adds an “authentic BIMCO template” warranty and space for electronic signature, reflecting the shift to digital fixing.

A reader who has the boxes has the fixture in outline. The freight rate, the laydays and cancelling window, the load and discharge ports, the cargo, the laytime allowance and the demurrage rate are all in Part I, and they are what the market negotiates in the recap. The printed Part II clauses then supply the legal machinery that the boxes assume.

A GENCON fixture in outline

To see how the boxes carry the deal, consider a stylized minor-bulk fixture, with terms chosen to illustrate the structure rather than to describe any real cargo. An owner offers a 32,000-tonne handysize bulk carrier, open at a load area, to a charterer with a cargo of bagged cement. The recap completes the Part I boxes: the vessel’s name, its GT, NT and summer deadweight and, on GENCON 2022, its IMO number, class society and P&I club; the present position and the expected readiness to load; a single loading port and a single discharging port; the cargo as “30,000 metric tonnes, 10 per cent more or less in owner’s option”; a freight of a stated sum per tonne, marked payable within a set number of days of completion of loading; a laytime allowance of so many weather working days for loading and discharging, often on a total-time basis; a demurrage rate of a stated sum per day and pro rata; a cancelling date; and the choice of English law and London arbitration left to the default. The parties then attach rider clauses for the matters the printed form does not cover to their satisfaction, and the fixture is recapped as “GENCON 2022 as amended.”

Read against that recap, the printed Part II clauses fall into place. The freight box tells the owner when the freight is earned and payable; the laytime box and the laytime clauses tell the parties how the allowed time is counted and when it starts; the demurrage box and clause fix the price of detaining the ship beyond it; the cancelling box and clause give the charterer the right to walk away from a late ship; and the owners’ responsibility clause sets how far the owner answers for cargo loss. The recap is short because the printed form and the riders supply everything the boxes assume, which is the economy the form exists to provide, and which is why a GENCON fixture can be concluded in a message that fits on a single screen.

The Part II clauses

The pre-printed clauses are where the form does its legal work, and their numbering is one of the practical things a practitioner must get right, because it changes between editions. The account below walks the principal clauses and gives the clause number in each edition; the owners’ responsibility clause, the most consequential of them, has a section of its own.

Freight and its payment. GENCON 1994 Clause 4 provides for freight at the Box 13 rate, paid in cash on the intaken quantity, and offers the choice, made in the box, between “prepaid” freight, which is deemed earned and non-returnable, ship and cargo lost or not lost, and freight payable “on delivery.” GENCON 2022 recasts this at Clause 7: non-lump-sum freight is earned progressively throughout loading on the Mate’s Receipt quantity, lump-sum freight is earned on completion of loading, freight is non-returnable ship or cargo lost or not lost, and the owner need not sign “freight prepaid” bills of lading until the freight is actually received. The 2022 form drops the explicit prepaid-versus-on-delivery sub-clause of 1994 and simply states the timing in the box.

Loading and discharging. GENCON 1994 Clause 5 allocates the cost and risk of cargo handling, the “free in and out” architecture the market completes through the box, to charterers. GENCON 2022 Clause 4 states plainly that the charterers load, tally, stow, trim, secure and discharge the cargo under the master’s supervision but at their risk, responsibility and expense.

Laytime, notice of readiness and cancelling. In GENCON 1994 the laytime clause is Clause 6, the cancelling clause is Clause 9, and the notice of readiness and the commencement of laytime are handled within the laytime clause. GENCON 2022 pulls these apart into a fuller set: Clause 8 covers ETA notices, Clause 9 the notice of readiness, Clause 10 laytime, Clause 11 the commencement of laytime and Clause 12 the running of laytime, and the cancelling clause moves to Clause 14. The 2022 laytime clause incorporates the BIMCO Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013, so terms like “weather working day” carry a settled meaning, and it treats weather as an exception to the running of laytime rather than the 1994 form’s “weather permitting” interruption. The mechanics of counting allowed time, and of the notice of readiness that starts it, are set out in those articles.

Demurrage. The demurrage rate is a fixed daily figure stated in the box, Box 20 in 1994 and Box 19 in 2022. GENCON 1994 Clause 7 sets out the demurrage regime; GENCON 2022 Clause 13 covers demurrage and despatch together. GENCON demurrage is liquidated damages, a pre-agreed daily sum for detaining the ship beyond the laytime, and the general rule that once a ship is on demurrage it stays on demurrage, so that the exceptions that interrupted laytime no longer apply, governs unless the charter expressly preserves them.

Lien and the owner’s remedies. GENCON 1994 Clause 8 gives the owner a lien on the cargo and on sub-freights for freight, deadfreight, demurrage and damages. GENCON 2022 keeps the lien at Clause 15 and adds a genuinely new remedy at Clause 16, Suspension and Termination, letting the owner suspend performance if freight, deadfreight, demurrage or other sums go unpaid. Notably, neither edition contains a cesser clause of the kind found in some other forms; the owner’s security is the contractual lien rather than a cesser of charterer liability.

Deviation, bills of lading, general average and collision. Deviation is Clause 3 in 1994 and Clause 22, Liberty and Deviation, in 2022. The bills-of-lading clause is Clause 10 in 1994, requiring bills on the CONGENBILL form with a charterer’s indemnity against more onerous terms, and Clause 19 in 2022, backed by Clause 20, the BIMCO Electronic Bills of Lading Clause 2014. General average is adjusted under the York-Antwerp Rules at the place stated in the box, London by default; it is Clause 12 in 1994, combined with the New Jason Clause, and Clause 29 in 2022, with the general average and York-Antwerp Rules framework unchanged in substance. The both-to-blame collision protection is a standalone Clause 11 in 1994 and is gathered into Clause 28, Protective Clauses, in 2022.

War risks, strikes, ice, sanctions and security. GENCON 1994 carries a General Strike Clause at Clause 16, VOYWAR 1993 war risks at Clause 17, and a General Ice Clause at Clause 18. GENCON 2022 modernizes and expands this protective suite: strikes at Clause 17, the BIMCO Ice Clause 2005 at Clause 30, the BIMCO ISPS/MTSA Clause 2005 at Clause 31, the BIMCO Sanctions Clause 2020 at Clause 32, VOYWAR 2013 war risks at Clause 33, and the BIMCO Piracy Clause 2013 at Clause 34. The sanctions, ISPS and piracy clauses are all new to the printed form in 2022; under GENCON 1994 they had to be added by rider.

Law and arbitration. Both editions default to English law and London arbitration if the parties do not choose otherwise. GENCON 1994 Clause 19 offers three options selected in the box, English law and London arbitration, US law and New York arbitration, or another agreed place, with an LMAA small-claims option. GENCON 2022 Clause 37 incorporates the BIMCO Law and Arbitration Clause 2020, selected in the box, again defaulting to English law and London arbitration where the choice is left incomplete.

The further 2022 clauses. The larger 2022 clause set carries several provisions with no printed equivalent in 1994, reflecting matters the older form left to riders or to the general law. Clause 21, Classification and Insurance, obliges the owner to keep the vessel in class and insured; Clause 23, Substitution, governs the owner’s right to substitute the named vessel; Clause 24, Sub-let and Assignment, controls the charterer’s ability to pass on the charter; Clause 27, Limitation of Liability, preserves the parties’ rights to limit under the applicable international convention; Clause 26, Agency, and Clause 35, Brokerage, deal with appointment and commission; Clause 36, Notices, sets how contractual notices are given; and Clause 38, Original Charter Party, addresses the authentic executed contract. None of these changes the fundamental voyage-charter bargain, but together they make GENCON 2022 far more self-contained than its predecessor, which relied on the general law and on riders to supply the same coverage.

The owners’ responsibility clause: the notorious Clause 2

The one clause every GENCON user must understand, and the one that most sharply divides the two editions, is Clause 2, the Owners’ Responsibility Clause. It sets how far the owner is liable to the cargo interest for loss, damage or delay, and the two editions answer that question very differently.

Under GENCON 1994, Clause 2 confines the owner’s liability to loss, damage or delay caused by the owners’ or their manager’s personal want of due diligence to make the vessel seaworthy and properly manned, equipped and supplied, or by their personal act or default. Crucially, the owner is not responsible for loss, damage or delay from any other cause whatsoever, “even from the neglect or default of the Master or crew.” This is a genuinely narrow liability, narrower than the Hague or Hague-Visby regime that governs many bills of lading, and it is why practitioners speak of GENCON 1994’s owner-friendly, sometimes “notorious,” Clause 2. A cargo interest fixing on GENCON 1994 needs to appreciate that the shipowner escapes liability for the negligence of the master and crew, a risk allocation that would surprise anyone assuming a standard carrier-liability regime.

GENCON 2022 rewrites this. Its Clause 2 requires the owner to exercise due diligence to provide a seaworthy vessel and to care properly for the cargo, and in return entitles the owner to all the rights, defences, immunities, time bars and limitations available to a carrier under the Hague-Visby Rules . The effect is to move GENCON from its historically owner-tilted basis to the more conventional, and more balanced, allocation that the international carriage regime embodies, while still leaving owners well protected through the Hague-Visby defences. The difference is not cosmetic: under GENCON 1994 an owner may defeat a cargo claim arising from crew negligence, whereas under GENCON 2022 the same claim is judged by the Hague-Visby yardstick. Knowing which edition governs a fixture is therefore essential before advising on a cargo claim, which is the single most important practical reason to read the edition off the recap.

Editions: from 1922 to GENCON 2022

The form’s lineage runs across a century. The original Uniform General Charter appeared in 1922, issued by the Documentary Council of the Baltic and White Sea Conference, and GENCON 2022 marked its hundredth anniversary. The form was among the first successful attempts to give the tramp trades a neutral, standard contract in place of the many house forms that owners and charterers had each drafted to their own advantage, and its general-purpose character, a single form for any trade without a specialised charter, is the reason it endured while more specialised contemporaries came and went.

A revision in 1976, GENCON 76, followed, but several of its clauses, notably the General Strike Clause, were cast into doubt by English court decisions, and that, together with the shift from gross and net register tonnage to the GT and NT of the 1969 Tonnage Convention, which took effect for existing ships from mid-1994, prompted the next revision. The 1976 form is also the edition with which many older rider practices grew up, including the common incorporation of the Centrocon arbitration clause, and understanding that lineage helps a practitioner read the accreted riders on an old fixture.

GENCON 1994 was adopted by BIMCO’s Documentary Committee in November 1994 and became the industry workhorse for nearly three decades. It kept the lean, general-purpose character of the earlier forms and the broadly owner-tilted risk allocation, and it was fixed on across the dry-cargo tramp trades in enormous volume. Its very leanness, however, meant that the market layered ever more rider clauses onto it to deal with matters the printed form did not address, from sanctions and security to electronic documents, until the form was widely seen as no longer fit for purpose on its own.

GENCON 2022 was published on 25 October 2022, the product of a drafting subcommittee, and is a full rewrite rather than a light revision. It roughly doubles the clause count, folds the common riders into the printed contract, modernizes the cargo-handling, laytime and remedies provisions, and, most consequentially, rebases the owners’ liability on the Hague-Visby model. GENCON 1994 will remain in circulation for years, because parties continue to fix on the edition they know and because existing contracts of affreightment call for it, so the two editions coexist and the recap must name which one applies.

GENCON 2022 versus GENCON 1994: what changed

Beyond the headline liability change, several other differences matter in practice. The approach-voyage and cancelling provisions were reworked: the owner’s obligation to prosecute the approach voyage now carries an express exception where the vessel is prevented or hindered by events beyond the owner’s control, a response to the line of cases on the owner’s absolute obligation to proceed, and the cancelling clause gives the charterer a clean election to accept a delayed vessel’s new ETA or to cancel, rather than the 1994 form’s mechanical seventh-day rule.

The 2022 form also adds provisions the 1994 form simply lacked. A dedicated Cargo clause, Clause 3, covers description, marking, packing and stowage, the commingling and short-delivery risk of bulk cargoes, part-cargo top-off, MARPOL Annex V harmful residues and lighterage, all at the charterer’s risk and expense. A new Cargo Fumigation clause, Clause 5, allocates fumigation to charterers. A new General Exceptions clause, Clause 18, gives both parties a mutual exemption for events beyond their control, something GENCON 1994 offered the charterer nowhere, while expressly not stopping laytime or demurrage running or excusing payment. And the wholesale incorporation of modern BIMCO standard clauses, electronic bills of lading, sanctions, war risks, piracy, ISPS and ice, brings the printed form up to the standard the market had been achieving only through riders. The freight clause was simplified to the progressive-earning and lump-sum-on-completion model, and the form was modernized administratively with the enlarged box set, electronic signature and the updated CONGENBILL. The net effect is a longer, more self-contained, and more balanced contract that needs fewer riders to be workable.

The transition between editions is gradual rather than clean, which is itself a practical point. A market that has fixed on GENCON 1994 for nearly thirty years does not switch overnight: brokers and principals know the 1994 clauses and their case law, existing contracts of affreightment and long-term relationships call for the familiar form, and some owners prefer the older edition precisely because its Clause 2 is more favorable to them. GENCON 2022 is displacing it steadily rather than at a stroke, most quickly on new business and among parties who value the built-in sanctions, security and cargo clauses. The consequence for anyone working with GENCON is that both editions will remain current for years, that a recap or a rider must state which one applies, and that a claim or an advice must be checked against the right edition’s clause numbers and, above all, its owners’ responsibility regime, because reading a GENCON 1994 dispute against the GENCON 2022 liability clause, or the reverse, produces the wrong answer.

CONGENBILL: the paired bill of lading

A charter party governs the owner and the charterer, but the cargo moves under a bill of lading, and GENCON has its own: CONGENBILL, BIMCO’s charter-party bill of lading for general cargo. CONGENBILL is a short document that incorporates the terms of the GENCON charter by reference, so that the law and arbitration clause, the general average provision and the other charter terms follow the cargo into the hands of a receiver who was never a party to the charter. Its editions track the charter: CONGENBILL 1994, 2007 and 2016 have been used with GENCON 1994, and CONGENBILL 2022 is aligned with GENCON 2022. Because a bill of lading can end up in the hands of a third-party holder with different rights from the charterer, the incorporation is a point of real legal sensitivity, and the interaction of the charter, the CONGENBILL and the Hague-Visby Rules is a recurring subject of dispute. A receiver who takes delivery under a CONGENBILL is bound by the charter’s arbitration and general-average terms even though it never saw the charter, provided the incorporating words are effective, which is why the wording of the incorporation clause, and the edition it points to, repay close attention. The GENCON article’s companion here is that CONGENBILL is not an afterthought but the instrument that carries the charter’s bargain to the cargo.

Using GENCON in practice

GENCON is fixed where no better-fitting form exists. That means the minor bulks, general and break-bulk, bagged goods, steels, project and parcel dry cargo, and the tramp and one-off fixtures that make up so much of the dry trades. The major commodity trades, by contrast, use their own specialised charters: grain on forms such as NORGRAIN, AUSTWHEAT or SYNACOMEX, coal on AMWELSH or SHELLCOAL, and ore and fertilisers on various trade forms. GENCON fills the wide space around those specialised forms, which is exactly the role its 1922 header claims.

A GENCON fixture is negotiated by completing Part I in the recap and attaching rider clauses that amend or supplement Part II. Because Part I prevails over Part II, the negotiated main terms and the riders override the printed clauses where they conflict, and a well-run fixture is a careful reconciliation of the three layers. GENCON 2022’s larger built-in clause set is meant to reduce the reliance on riders that had grown up around the 1994 form, and BIMCO distributes the form as an editable SmartCon template that the parties fill in and sign, increasingly electronically. In the freight economics of the fixture, the owner will judge the outcome not by the lump-sum or per-tonne freight alone but by the daily time charter equivalent the voyage produces after bunkers, ports and the ballast leg, the same conversion applied to any voyage fixture in voyage estimation .

GENCON compared with the time-charter and tanker forms

GENCON is easiest to place by contrast with the forms it is not. Against a time charter such as NYPE, the New York Produce Exchange form, the difference is the whole nature of the bargain. Under GENCON the owner sells a voyage: it carries a defined cargo between agreed ports for a freight, keeps the master and crew, pays the running costs and the bunkers, and takes the risk that the voyage runs long only as the laytime and demurrage clauses allocate it. Under NYPE the owner sells time: the charterer pays a daily hire, directs where the ship trades within agreed limits, and pays for the bunkers and the port costs of the employment, while the owner still crews and maintains the ship. The commercial questions are different, freight and laytime under GENCON, hire and off-hire under NYPE, and so are the forms. A party that has fixed the wrong kind of contract for its intended trade has a problem no amount of rider drafting will fix cleanly.

Against the tanker voyage forms, the difference is the cargo and the pricing convention rather than the structure. ASBATANKVOY, SHELLVOY and the oil-major forms are voyage charters like GENCON, but they are written for liquid bulk and their freight is quoted on the Worldscale scale as a percentage of a nominal flat rate, whereas GENCON’s freight is a lump sum or a rate per tonne stated in the box. A dry-cargo charterer would no more fix a cargo of grain or steel on ASBATANKVOY than an oil trader would fix a crude cargo on GENCON. The point of the charter-party library is that each trade reaches for the form built for it, and GENCON is the form built for the general run of dry cargo that has no more specialised home. Understanding GENCON, therefore, is partly understanding where it sits: the default dry-cargo voyage charter, distinct from the time charters that hire the ship and from the tanker voyage forms that price liquid freight on a different scale.

Where to obtain the official form

GENCON is BIMCO copyright, and the official, authentic form is available only from BIMCO, through its SmartCon contract platform and its authorised distribution channels. This article explains the form; it does not reproduce or host it, and a fixture should always be drawn on the genuine BIMCO template rather than an unofficial copy, both because the authentic version carries BIMCO’s warranty of authenticity and because unofficial copies can contain subtle errors in the printed clauses that change the bargain. Both GENCON 1994 and GENCON 2022, and their CONGENBILL companions, are obtained the same way.

Common issues and practitioner caveats

Several recurring problems attach to GENCON in practice. The first is the priority of Part I over Part II: typed-in boxes and riders override the printed clauses, and riders that only partly amend a printed clause are a frequent source of litigation over what the parties actually agreed. The second is the owner-friendly Clause 2 of GENCON 1994, which allocates far less liability to the owner than a cargo interest assuming a standard carrier regime would expect, and which GENCON 2022 realigns to Hague-Visby; knowing the edition is essential. The third is the effect of deleting or amending printed clauses, since striking a strike or ice clause, or altering the cancelling mechanics, changes the risk allocation in ways that are not always obvious from the deletion alone.

The fourth cluster of issues is the classic laytime and demurrage disputes: whether a valid notice of readiness was tendered, which turns on the ship having arrived, being ready in all respects with clean holds, at the right place and in the required form and hours, and when laytime therefore commenced. GENCON 2022 tightens this with its dedicated notice-of-readiness and commencement-of-laytime clauses and a hold-cleanliness duty before tendering, and its incorporation of the BIMCO Laytime Definitions 2013 reduces, without eliminating, the definitional arguments over weather working days and the SHINC and SHEX conventions that fill the reversible laytime and despatch and laytime case law. The last caveat is edition discipline itself: because GENCON 1994 and GENCON 2022 differ materially on liability, laytime and cancellation, every recap, every rider and every claim must name the edition it is built on, or the parties risk arguing two different contracts.

For all these traps, GENCON remains what it has been for a century: the workable default that lets a dry-cargo voyage be fixed quickly and read consistently across the trade. Its value is precisely that a broker anywhere can price a cargo against it, a principal can recap a deal in a few lines, and a tribunal can construe the result against a body of settled case law, without either side inventing a contract from scratch. The form rewards the practitioner who knows its structure, reads the boxes and riders against the printed clauses in the right order of priority, and above all fixes and argues on the correct edition. Used with that discipline, it does exactly the job the Documentary Council set out to do in 1922, giving the general run of dry cargo a single, neutral, and predictable voyage charter.

Related Articles

• Voyage charter party
• Charter parties: voyage, time, and bareboat
• Time charter party
• Bill of lading
• CONGENBILL
• Laytime
• Demurrage
• Notice of Readiness
• General average and York-Antwerp Rules
• Both-to-blame collision clause
• Hague-Visby Rules
• Time charter equivalent
• Bulk carrier