From: alan.aronowitz@enron.com
To: richard.sanders@enron.com
Date: 1999-09-27 17:36:00+00:00
Subject: MT Pacific Valour

FYI.
---------------------- Forwarded by Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT on 09/27/99 05:35 
PM ---------------------------


Matthias Lee
09/27/99 08:53 AM
To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Anita Fam/SIN/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT 
Subject: MT Pacific Valour

Alan

I am forwarding to you the summary of WFW's opinion again. I have included a 
paragraph on damages recoverable which I missed out earlier.



Also. Russell had informed that John Nowlan is travelling in Europe. Vienna, 
I think.

Regards

Matt
---------------------- Forwarded by Matthias Lee/SIN/ECT on 09/27/99 09:50 PM 
---------------------------


Matthias Lee
09/27/99 09:32 PM
To: Alan Aronowitz/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: Anita Fam/SIN/ECT@ECT, Angeline Poon/SIN/ECT@ECT 

Subject: MT Pacific Valour

Alan

Further to our telephone conversation this morning, I had sessions with 
Russell, Sheila, Seok Wah and Eric today to get answers to WFW's questions of 
fact, your various queries as well as their views on ops customs and usage. I 
also had a telephone conference with Neil and Suzanne of WFW. Below is a 
summary:

1. The C/P was entered into in Singapore by Russell for ECTS. All Petchem 
C/Ps are arranged by Russell. I am advised that it is at John Nowlan's 
instructions.

2. EPTS (Singapore) Pte Ltd are the Owners' agents. We do not at present know 
the identity of the Owners. WFW will find out from Lloyd's and relevant ship 
registers. In any case, the Owners would not know the chain of contracts. 
They would only know the type of cargo (stated in C/P), that the supplier is 
Hyundai Oil, Korea and receiver is Tuntex Petrochemicals (Thailand) Public 
Company (stated in the voyage orders 10 Sept). 

3. By an e-mail dated 16 Sept, EPTS advised of delays at Yantai because the 
preceding charterers did not have the import licence ready. EPTS claims that 
they were not aware of the problems at the time of fixing. We do not know of 
any other reason for the delay.

4. Delays at Chinese ports (including Yantai) are  common and typically for a 
few days (Sheila : 1 - 2 days, Russell : 3 - 4 days).

5. The clause "subject to unforeseen delays"  for ETA fixing is not unusual. 
WFW confirms that it would, in any case, be implied by law and the point is 
sufficiently supported by case law.

6. As regards the reference to "expected ready to load" in Suzanne's opinion 
of 24 Sept, it appears on the front page of asbatankvoy. WFW advises that the 
legal effect is the same as ETA and requires the Owners to nominate a date 
which they reasonable expect to meet. 

7. Seok Wah advises that the "expected ready to load" clause is rarely filled 
in (although not unheard of). She was not able to elaborate on the reasons 
except that it depends on whether the Owners would agree to it if it is at 
all requested for. She advsies that the actual asbatankvoy form typically 
arrives more than a month after the deal. At which time, loading is usually 
complete. 

8. As regards laycan coinciding with loading date range, Russell advises that 
this particular transaction was exceptional although not unusual. Loading 
date ranges for Petchem deals are typically wide and laycan would fall within 
the loading date range with some buffer at both ends. In the present case, 
loading date range (15 - 20 Sept) was almost the same as laycan (14 - 20 
Sept). Consequently, there was no "breathing space".

9. "GA/ARB LONDON" and "YA RULES in the C/P stands for "General 
Average/Arbitration London" and "York Antwerp rules" respectively. I 
understand the York Antwerp rules deal with General Average. In the absence 
of an express provision, the arbitral rules would be the general provisions 
of the UK Arbitration Act (1966).

10. Sheila now advises that the difference in price (including freight) 
between buying from Hyundai and Enron Petrochemicals (Europe) Company (the 
alternative source) is USD228,000. The difference in freight alone is 
USD87,000. Notably, however, the quality description of the product is 
amended in the supply contract to Tuntex.

11. Neil's advice:

(i) Agree entirely with Suzanne's advice. An action against Hyundai is 
speculative at best. A more realistic action exists against the Owners. I 
conveyed the answers to questions posed by Suzanne in her opinion. WFW had no 
further questions at present.

(ii) Further explored the issue of whether the Clause "Default ,Termination 
and Liquidation" in the Hyundai trade confirmation :-  whether the definition 
of "Default" which includes "a material breach" not cured within 10 business 
days may be construed as an expressed cure period for a breach of loading 
date range. Neil does not think that it can and loading date range would 
still be construed as a condition a breach of which entitles termination by 
the non-defaulting party. 

(iii) The duty of "reasonable despatch" is continuing and applies for each 
revised ETA advised by the Owners. 


Attached for your comments is an executive summary of WFW's opinion based on 
Suzanne's opinion dated 24 September 1999 and our telephone discussions today.




Regards

Matt