20 Clauses That Move the Money in Charters in 2026
February 13, 2026
In 2026, the clauses that move the money are the ones that decide (a) when hire is actually earned or suspended, (b) how performance is measured and monetized, and (c) how fuel quantity and quality disputes get priced. Most of this still anchors to widely used time-charter frameworks like NYPE 2015, plus add-on bunker quality and sampling clauses used to close gaps that the base form can leave open.
20 Clauses That Move the Money in Charters in 2026 (Batch 1 of 5)
First five clauses that most directly control hire cashflow, off-hire leakage, performance deductions, and bunker disputes
| # | Clause | Controls the money by | Common negotiation levers | Owner downside if drafted weak | Impact tags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Hire payment, grace period, and anti-technicality
The payment mechanics that decide whether late hire becomes leverage or leakage.
|
Defining when hire is considered paid (receipt vs instruction), whether set-off is barred, and how quickly owners can escalate after non-payment.
This is the clause that turns “late pay” into either a short delay or a prolonged cash drag.
|
Receipt into owner account vs “remittance sent”, cure window length, notice wording, suspension of services, and withdrawal rights. | Slower remedies and higher credit exposure, especially when charterers stretch instalments or dispute offsets. | Cashflow Withdrawal |
| 2 |
Off-hire triggers and counting rules
The single biggest “silent deduction” line in many time-charter outcomes.
|
Pinning down which events stop hire, the start and stop of off-hire time, and whether “partial” impairment counts.
Small wording differences decide whether delays become owner time, charterer time, or a shared gray zone.
|
Narrow vs broad event list, “preventing full working” tests, place and timing of put-back, weather or port exception handling, and evidence standards. | Off-hire expands into routine inefficiency: slowdowns, minor faults, and port delays become easier to claim against hire. | Hire loss Dispute |
| 3 |
Speed and consumption, performance claims
Performance language can convert operational variance into a hard deduction.
|
Establishing how speed and fuel burn are measured (weather limits, currents, data sources), and how deductions are computed.
If the method is vague, claims become a spreadsheet fight that owners rarely enjoy.
|
Defining “good weather” envelope, data hierarchy (noon reports, VDR, weather routing data), tolerances, and whether it is a continuing warranty. | Larger and more frequent underperformance claims, plus indirect exposure through “slow steaming” disputes and voyage planning friction. | Fuel Deductions |
| 4 |
Bunkers on delivery and redelivery
Turns a tank reading into money: quantity, pricing basis, and survey rules.
|
Fixing which grades must be on board, min-max delivery/redelivery quantities, how price is set, and how ROB is measured.
This clause decides whether bunkers are a clean closeout or a last-day argument.
|
Price basis (invoice, market index, agreed price), surveyor selection, tank measurement method, tolerance bands, and dispute resolution. | Value disputes at redelivery, unintended ROB exposure, and operational constraints if charterers redeliver outside practical bunker bands. | ROB value Closeout |
| 5 |
Bunker quality, sampling chain, and testing rights
Defines who carries the cost when fuel is off-spec and engines do not like it.
|
Setting a clear suitability standard, agreeing the sampling chain, and defining remedies if fuel fails spec.
Strong sampling language is often the difference between a clean recovery and a dead-end claim.
|
Suitability for engines, mutually agreed specification, sample custody, lab selection, time limits to test, and what remedies apply. | Harder recovery on claims, more disputes over causation, and higher exposure to operational disruption from contaminated or unsuitable fuel. | Engine risk Claims |
| 6 |
Bunker non-lien and supplier arrest protection
Stops a charterer bunker bill from becoming an owner vessel arrest problem.
|
Allocating responsibility for bunkers and requiring charterers to ensure suppliers cannot lien the vessel.
When this is weak, the owner can spend real money defending an arrest risk that is not their debt.
|
Mandatory “no lien” notice posting and delivery to suppliers, charterer warranty that bunkers are ordered on charterer account, indemnities, and evidence of supplier terms. | Vessel arrest exposure, urgent security postings, legal cost, delay, and leverage loss even if the owner ultimately wins. | Arrest risk Legal cost |
| 7 |
War risks: routing rights, AVO and additional premium allocation
Decides who pays the war risk bill and who has the final call on proceeding.
|
Defining owner rights to refuse or exit high-risk areas and the mechanism for charging additional premiums and costs.
This clause is where a 0.2% versus 1% premium swing becomes a payable line item or a dispute.
|
Definition of war risk areas, notice and consent mechanics, proof of additional premiums, whether crew bonus and security costs are recoverable, and diversion time allocation. | Owners absorb premiums, delays, and deviation costs or get stuck executing risky orders under commercial pressure. | War risk Deviation |
| 8 |
Piracy and security costs: guards, equipment, and delay
Turns the security plan into a clean cost allocation instead of a mid-voyage fight.
|
Assigning responsibility for armed guards, citadel measures, equipment, bonuses, and route changes when the threat level changes.
The money moves on who pays for the package and whether time lost is on or off hire.
|
Who appoints security provider, approval process, permitted equipment, guards carriage terms, BMP compliance expectations, and recovery of security related delay. | Owners eat security cost and time loss or face operational friction that can slow decision making in a time-sensitive corridor. | Security cost Delay |
| 9 |
Sanctions compliance and illegality: refusal rights and cost allocation
Prevents a fixture from turning into a sanctions trap with unpaid time and cost.
|
Allowing owners to refuse orders that create sanctions exposure and requiring charterers to provide lawful alternative employment.
This clause controls whether waiting time and diversion are compensated or become owner exposure.
|
Charterer warranties, documentary support requirements, refusal and alternative order timelines, indemnities, and treatment of delay while legality is assessed. | Unpaid waiting time, forced deviation, legal exposure, and loss of insurance support if the ship is pushed into a prohibited trade. | Sanctions Legal risk |
| 10 |
Safe port and safe berth: warranty, change of circumstances, and remedies
One of the biggest hidden value drivers when conditions shift fast.
|
Establishing charterer responsibility for ordering only ports and berths that are safe for the vessel, including approach, stay, and departure.
The money moves on who pays when the berth becomes unsafe, congested, or restricted after orders are issued.
|
Definition of safety, owner rights to refuse or leave, obligation to nominate alternative safe port, treatment of time and costs during waiting or shifting, and evidence standards. | Grounding, damage exposure, prolonged waiting without clean cost recovery, and disputes over whether the risk was “ordinary” or a breach. | Damage Delay |
| 11 |
Deviation and liberties: when owners can deviate without penalty
Protects hire and claims positioning when safety, war, piracy, or compliance forces a route change.
|
Clarifying that certain route changes or actions taken for safety, security, or compliance are permitted and do not trigger “unjustified deviation” arguments.
This clause is the bridge between operational reality and keeping the contract economics intact.
|
Scope of permitted deviation (war, piracy, rescue, sanctions, safety), notice and documentation, and how time and bunkers are treated during the deviation. | Charterers claim breach or try to treat time as off-hire, plus heightened cargo claims exposure if deviation is framed as improper. | Claims Hire risk |
| 12 |
Laytime, demurrage, and exceptions (voyage charters)
Turns port delay into a number or turns it into an argument.
|
Defining how laytime counts, what stops the clock, and whether demurrage is the sole remedy for delay.
Small words like “whether in berth or not” and “always accessible” can swing the invoice.
|
Laytime basis (WWD, SHINC, weather exceptions), NOR validity and timing, reversible vs non-reversible laytime, demurrage rate, and “once on demurrage, always on demurrage” treatment. | Delay becomes unpaid time, demurrage recovery becomes uncertain, and statement-of-facts disputes drag on. | Demurrage Port delay |
| 13 |
Notice of readiness, tender rules, and cancelling date
Decides whether time starts counting or sits idle while everyone argues about readiness.
|
Setting what “ready” means, where NOR can be tendered, and the accepted delivery window with a clear cancelling date mechanism.
This is often the line between quick dispatch and a stalled fixture with claims.
|
NOR tender place (WIBON/WIPON/WIFPON style concepts where used), documentation requirements, tender method, local office hours, and cancelling protections. | Laytime does not start when expected, higher exposure to cancellation, and more leverage handed to the counterparty at the worst moment. | Laytime Cancellation |
| 14 |
Cargo handling responsibility: loading, stowage, lashing, and trimming
Allocates who pays for the work and who owns the risk when something goes wrong.
|
Defining who is responsible and who pays for cargo operations and related delays, including stevedore damage and cargo securing.
The money moves on damage claims, time loss, and which invoices are recoverable.
|
FIO/FIOS/FIOST style allocations (where relevant), stevedore damage reporting windows, supervision obligations, lashing and dunnage terms, and “owners risk vs charterers risk” wording. | Owners absorb cargo damage exposure, extra port time, and unplanned invoices that should have been for charterer account. | Damage Invoices |
| 15 |
Port charges, canal dues, and mandatory services allocation
Stops “who pays the port” from becoming a recurring deduction fight.
|
Allocating port costs, canal tolls, pilotage, towage, shifting, tugs, mooring gangs, and other mandatory local services.
In 2026 reroutes and congestion make these costs more volatile and more disputable.
|
Clear “for owners account” vs “for charterers account” lists, treatment of shifting and waiting, documentation requirements, and what happens when routing changes. | Owners carry surprise port bills, margin erosion on borderline voyages, and recurring small disputes that add up over a year. | Port costs Volatility |
| 16 |
EU ETS and emissions cost allocation in fixtures
Turns carbon compliance into a payable mechanism instead of a post-voyage dispute.
|
Defining who bears the cost of EU ETS allowances, how emissions are calculated and evidenced, and how timing and settlement work.
The money moves on voyage attribution, data quality, and whether deviations or off-hire adjust the emissions math.
|
Allocation method (owner vs charterer vs split), data source hierarchy, settlement timing, adjustment for deviation/off-hire, and documentation requirements. | Owners get stuck with unpriced carbon exposure or spend months arguing allocation after the revenue is already booked. | Compliance Cost shift |
| 17 |
FuelEU Maritime and emissions-intensity cooperation
Defines who carries the cost when compliance requires operational changes or fuel choices.
|
Setting cooperation rules on fuel choice, voyage planning, and reporting so the ship can meet emissions-intensity requirements without constant dispute.
This clause matters most when charterers control orders that drive the emissions outcome.
|
Data sharing and reporting obligations, agreed operating parameters, treatment of charterer orders that worsen compliance position, and settlement mechanics where used. | Owners face compliance penalties or operational constraints without matching compensation or clear contractual recourse. | Regulatory Operations |
| 18 |
Hull fouling, underwater cleaning rights, and performance deterioration
Decides whether biofouling becomes an owner loss or a shared operational reality.
|
Allocating responsibility for hull and propeller condition, cleaning permissions, and how performance deterioration is treated in speed and consumption claims.
The money moves on who pays for cleaning and who carries the fuel penalty while waiting for permission.
|
Cleaning triggers and approvals, port and environmental restrictions handling, cost allocation, performance claim adjustments, and evidence requirements (photos, dive reports). | Owners absorb cleaning costs, lose speed or burn more fuel, and face larger performance deductions tied to fouling they cannot clean quickly. | Performance Maintenance |
| 19 |
Trading limits, ice clauses, and seasonal restrictions
Controls who pays when the trade turns from routine to specialized and risky.
|
Defining permitted trading areas and what happens when ice, seasonal limits, or special class requirements apply.
This clause can swing insurance premiums, bunker burn, and days lost to ice routing or convoy.
|
Ice class and routing requirements, who pays ice premiums and escort fees, refusal rights, time allocation for delays, and notice requirements. | Owners inherit ice risk or cost without compensation, or get forced into marginal trades that increase damage and delay exposure. | Ice risk Extra cost |
| 20 |
Dispute resolution: law, forum, security, liens, and set-off rules
Decides how fast money is recovered and how painful disputes become.
|
Fixing the governing law and forum, and spelling out rights to demand security, exercise liens, and restrict set-off.
When this is vague, the “winning” party can still lose on time, cost, and enforceability.
|
Arbitration seat and rules, service of process, security for claims, lien rights (including sub-freights where used), time bars, and limits on set-off. | Slower recoveries, higher legal spend, forum fights, and weaker leverage when a counterparty drags out settlement. | Recovery Legal |
Clause Money Moved Estimator (Charters 2026)
Enter deal basics, then score clause tightness and dispute likelihood to see expected and worst-case swings
Deal inputs
These inputs feed the per-clause money levers below
Results
Expected money moved (USD)
$0
Weighted by clause tightness and dispute likelihood.
Worst-case swing (USD)
$0
Sum of modeled levers if everything breaks the wrong way.
Top drivers
—
Largest expected items given current settings.
Score the clauses
Tightness: 5 = tight/owner-friendly, 1 = loose. Likelihood: chance it turns into a deduction or dispute.
| # | Clause | Modeled money lever | Tightness score | Likelihood | Expected swing |
|---|
Tags in the list are grouped by the most common way money changes hands: hire time, fuel, premiums, carbon, port costs, or legal leverage.
These clauses are not theory, they are the knobs that turn a fixture into either clean, predictable revenue or a long tail of deductions, disputes, and surprise invoices. The best outcome usually comes from treating the contract like an operating manual: define how time counts, define how performance is measured, define how risk premiums and compliance costs get evidenced and settled, and make sure the remedy language matches the reality of how ships trade in 2026.
We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.
