Idea Transcript
More Next Blog»
Create Blog Sign In
Once Upon A Time... Select Language Translate
Powered by
Halaman
Mei 25, 2012
Hey my reader, thank you for your time to take a look my blog. I'm glad to know that someone interest in my writing. Actually, all the blog came from my college tasks. I hope you can make it as your useful resources. Anyway, i will keep posted useful information. I hope you can give me a comment in some article to give me a feed back. Gracias Diposting oleh completestory di 19.07
Beranda About Me Mengenai Saya
completestor y Lihat profil lengkapku
Arsip Blog
2015 (2) 2013 (1) t 2012 (6) Juli (1)
Grebeg Pancasila
t Mei (3) Hey my reader, thank you for your time to take a l...
Di Blitar setiap tanggal 21 Juni, pihak keluarga Bung Karno selalu mengadakan acara keluarga dalam mengenang Bung Karno, yaitu Haul Bung Karno. Dan pada beberapa kesempatan, ada pula seniman yang diundang untuk mengisis acara Haul Bung Karno tersebut. Hal ini turut pula menumbuhkan kerinduan yang besar di hati para seniman, dan meluas pada masyarakat umum Blitar. Terbukti, ketika acara Haul Bung Karno berlangsung, banyak pedagang yang menjual suvenirsuvenir yang bergampar potret diri Bung Karno. Pancasila sebagai mahakarya dari pemikiran agung dan hasil refleksi Bung Karno Selama masa-masa pengasingannya pun tak lepas dari perhatian masyarakat Blitar, khususnya para seniman.Pada masa itu nilai-nilai luhur yang terkandung dalam Pancasila sebagai falsafah hidup bangsa Indonesia sering dilanggar, maka muncul kemudian hasrat untuk mempersatukan masyarakat Blitar khususnya dalam penegakan kembali nilai-nilai luhur Pancasila. Akan tetapi, yang menjadi keprihatinan para seniman adalah bahwa Hari Kelahiran Pancasila tanggal 1 Juni tidak dijadikan salah satu hari besar nasional yang secara luas diperingati. Yang selama itu diperingati hanyalah Hari Kesaktian Pancasila setiap tanggal 1 Oktober, yang disinyalir untuk mengenang Pahlawan Revolusi. Berdasarkan Surat Keputusan Menteri/Panglima Angkatan Darat tertanggal 17 September 1966 (Kep. 977/9/1966) ditetapkan tanggal 1 Oktober sebagai Hari Kesaktian Pancasila
Grebeg Pancasila Demmurag e and Damage for Detentio n (Maritim e Law) Maret (1) Januari (1) 2011 (9)
Pengikut
yang harus diperingati Angkatan Darat. Masyarakat Blitar, khususnya para seniman prihatin, karena pemerintah tidak menjadikan Hari Kelahiran Pancasila sebagai salah satu hari nasional. Bahkan menurut para seniman Blitar, pemerintah seolah-olah ingin agar hari penting tersebut hilang dari ingatan rakyat Indonesia. Hal ini merupakan salah satu upaya pemerintah Orde Baru yang hendak menghapus ingatan rakyat akan jiwa dan semangat patriotisme Ir. Soekarno, atau yang akrab kita panggil dengan nama Bung Karno, beserta karyakaryanya. Pemerintah justru memunculkan Hari Kesaktian Pancasila tanggal 1 Oktober. Masyarakat Blitar, khususnya para seniman yang mengakui diri sebagai PutraPutri Bung Karno, yang sangat menghargai semangat, ajaran, dan karya karyanya, merasa sangat perlu untuk membangkitkan kembali jiwa Bung Karno melalui suatu momentum. Namun, secara umum masyarakat Blitar belum berani untuk mewujudkannya, karena hal tersebut sangat berisiko, melihat kondisi politik pada saat itu. Akan tetapi, ada pihak yang sudah tidak kuasa menahan kerinduan tersebut, yaitu para seniman. Berangkat dari keprihatinan tersebut, para seniman Blitar berencana untuk mengusahakan sendiri sebuah perayaan khusus untuk memperingati Hari Kelahiran Pancasila yang merupakan mahakarya Bung Karno. Pada tahun 2000, upaya tersebut menemui titik terang. Meskipun respon dari pemerintah Kabupaten dan Kota sangat kecil, akan tetapi ada pihakpihak yang sangat mendukung terlaksananya kegiatan tersebut. Majelis Pelestari Ajaran Bung Karno (MPABK) bersedia untuk membiayai pelaksanaannya, yaitu sebesar Rp1.600.000,00.
Dari rangkaian acara yang telah disusun, para seniman dan masyarakat Blitar menamai acara tersebut Grebeg Pancasila. Upacara Grebeg yang pertama itu dilaksanakan di Istana Gebang. Dalam acara tersebut, ada dua orang pegawai negeri di Blitar yang turut serta, yaitu KRT Djoko Harijanto Nagoro danDrs.Pratignyo Y.S, MPd. Satu lagi seorang pegawai negeri yang turut berperan dalam mengusahakan perayaan tersebut. Dia adalah Drs. Andreas Edison, seorang guru yang bekerja di Kediri tetapi tinggal di Blitar. Pada masa itu, tidak sedikit pegawai negeri yang merasa takut untuk melakukan sesuatu yang dianggap berseberangan dengan kebijakan pemerintah Orde Baru. Nama mereka benarbenar diawasi oleh pemerintah. Maka, keputusan mereka untuk ikut serta dalam kegiatan tersebut merupakan keberanian yang luar biasa. Meski pelaksanaan Grebeg Pancasila yang pertama tersebut masih sangat sederhana dan dengan dana yang seadanya, namun para peserta merasakan adanya kerinduan dan kebanggaan yang besar dalam hati mereka, seperti seseorang yang sedang berjuang. Dari perayaan sederhana tersebut, kemudian muncul dukungan yang semakin luas dari masyarakat. Dukungan lebih dirasakan ketika Drs. H.Djarot Saiful Hidayat, MS. terpilih sebagai walikota Blitar yang baru pada tahun 2001 yang sangat mendukung Grebeg Pancasila. Pada tahun 2001 tanggapan penuh diberikan oleh Pemerintah Kota (Pemkot) Blitar atas pelaksaan Grebeg Pancasila. Menjadi momen yang istimewa karena pada tahun tersebut merupakan peringatan Seabad Bung Karno. Untuk selanjutnya pelaksaanaanya dibiayai oleh Pemkot Blitar dengan susunan panitia yang jelas dan perencanaan yang matang, melibatkan peran serta masyarakat Blitar secara luas. Setelah masyarakat Blitar mendukung penuh adanya Grebeg Pancasila sebagai momen khusus untuk menggali nilainilai luhur Pancasila, akhirnya disepakati bahwa akan diadakan sebuah seminar pembakuan Grebeg Pancasila. Seminar Pembakuan Grebeg Pancasila tersebut berlangsung di Balai Kota Kusuma Wicitra, Blitar, pada tanggal 22 April 2004. Setelah diadakannya seminar tersebut, kemudian dilanjutkan dengan acara Perumusan Hasil Seminar Pembakuan Grebeg Pancasila pada tanggal 4 Mei 2004 dan tanggal 11 Mei 2004 di aula Dinas Inkomparda Kota Blitar. Acara tersebut diikuti oleh pakar dan pelaku budaya sebanyak 12 orang, Kepala Kelurahan sekota Blitar, guru kesenian SLTA kota Blitar, lima orang LSM, Pengurus Dewan Kesenian Kota Blitar (DKKB), dan 3 tokoh masyarakat.
Bertindak sebagai pembicara adalah Pengageng Parentah Karaton Surakarta Hadiningrat, Drs. GPH Dipa Kusuma, yang diwakili olehKanjeng Raden Haryo Tumenggung (KHRT) Winarnodipuro, dan Kanjeng Raden Tumenggung (KRT) Bowodipuro, serta Djati Kusuma, seorang budayawan dari Malang.Adapun hasil dari Seminar Pembakuan Grebeg Pancasila di kota Blitar tersebut adalah sebagai berikut.
Umum 1.1. Grebeg Pancasila di Kota Blitar berorientasi nasionlisme yang pluralistik. 1.2. Pelaksanaannya disemangati hari lahir Pancasila tanggal 1 Juni. 1.3. Sebagai tuntunan, Grebeg Pancasila berkarakter kesederhanaan, bukan hurahura, dan sarana “Manunggale Kawula lan Pangarsa”. 1.4. Grebeg adalah indentitas lokal, cermin kekayaan dan keunikan budaya di Kota Blitar. 1.5. Lambang Grebeg adalah Burung garuda Pancasila. Khusus 2.1 Bahasa 2.1.1 Pembawa acara mengguanakan bahasa pengantar bahasa Indonesia 2.1.2 Para peraga menggunakan bahasa Jawa, untuk mempertahankan ciri khas, keunikan, dan kekayaan Bahasa Daerah. 2.2 Busana Peserta Grebeg Pancasila, wajib berbusana daerah, sesuai asal masing masing. Para pelaksana mengadopsi busana dari 3 kerajaan Jawa di masa lalu, yaitu Kerajaan Majapahit, Kerajaan Yogyakarta, dan Kerajaan Surakarta. 2.2.1 Sikep beskap lengkap, bagi para undangan, pejabat, maupun tokoh-tokoh masyarat yang lain. 2.2.2 Pakaian Kesatriyan (blangkon, surjan, dan celana 2/3) bagi para pelaksana upacara, seperti Manggala Upacara, Suba Manggala, Pambiwara Pancasila, Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Lima, serta peraga yang lain. 2.2.3 Pakaian prajurit Majapahit, bagi Bregada Patang Puluh Lima. 2.2.4 Kreasi merah putih bagi Pagar Ayu yang menghantar Teks Pancasila. 2.3 Musik 2.3.1 Prosesi Bedhol Grebeg, berupa Macapatan. 2.3.2 Upacara Grebeg terdiri atas sejumlah karya, antara lain sebagai berikut: 1) Ladrang Grebeg Pancasila, untuk pembuka dan pengantar narasi. 2) Ketawang Ibu Pertiwi, untuk mengiringi Pidato Bung Karno. 3) Lancaran Bela Pancasila, untuk mengiringi masuknya gunungan. 4) Sampak GaraGara, dan Mars Semangat Juang 45, untuk Janturan Grebeg. 5) Lancaran Bhayangkari, untuk persiapan upacara. 6) Ladrang Nata Agung, untuk penjemputan Pembina Upacara. 7) Ampyakan, untuk tanda kebesaran, penghormat dan laporan. 8) Dhandang Gual Palaran Pancasila, untuk iringan Pambiwara Pancasila. 9) Komposisi Ilustrasi Pancasila, untuk iringan penghantaran Teks Pancasila. 10)Ladrang Parampara, untuk penutup dan pembina upacara turun mimbar. 11) Ladrang Arum Wibawa, untuk persiapan kirab 12) KenduriPancasila a) Ladrang Soran, untuk menunggu pasukan kirab. b) Gendhing Renyeb, untuk iringan masuknya pasuka kirab. c) Gendhing Bonangan, untuk iringan Ngalap Berkah. 2.4 Gerak 2.4.1 Bedholan a) Tembus Pusaka, Cantrik dengan Ki Juru Kirab di Istana Gebang dan Istana Agung. b) Barisan obor iringan bende oleh Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Lima. Upacara a) Konsep upacara militer yang dimodifikasi gerak dan tarian tradisional jawa. b) Manggala Upacara, sikap prajurit Jawa. c) Pambiwara dan Pagar Ayu, langkah kapang dengan gerak dasar Rantoyo. 2.4.3 Kirab a) Iringiringan yang terdiri atas Pasukan Lambang Negara sebanyak 17 orang berpakaian putihputih, yang membawa lambang Grebeg yaitu gambar Garuda Pancasila, foto Ir. Soekarno, serta membawa bendera Merah Putih satu tiang penuh. b) Disusul dengan Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Lima yang membawa Gunungan Lima. Yang disambung dengan barisan bendi yang ditumpangi para pangarsa. Paling belakang, iring iringan masyarakat dari seluruh kelurahan yang ikut Grebeg. 2.4.4 Kenduri Gabungan acara formal dan tradisi ngalap berkah. 2.5 Setting a) Dekorasi Grebeg Pancasila, umbul dan penjor dominan warna gula kelapa, merahdan putih. b) Panggung Berukuran 10m x 12m berisi tiga trap, layar kain merah putih. c) Gunungan Lima adalah hasil bumi. d) Tumpeng adalah bunceng untuk selamatan sebagaimana masyarakat Jawa. Tujuan Diadakannya Grebeg Pancasila 5.1.1. Tujuan Umum Mengajak bangsa Indonesia untuk mengenang dan menghayati nilainilai luhur budaya bangsa, sekaligus menciptakan kedamaian, bukan kedamaian semu melainkan kedamaian yang tidak terperangkap dalam pengkotakkotakan manusia berdasarkan suku, agama, profesi, status sosial, ekonomi, dan agar bangsa Indonesia tidak mudah hanyut dalam berbagai gelombang kehidupan. 5.1.2. Tujuan Khusus 1) Mengusulkan kepada pemerintah, agar Hari Kelahiran Pancasila menjadi hari peringatan nasional, dalam rangka menggali lebih dalam nilainilai Pancasila dan mengkoreksi halhal yang terjadi daalam kehidupan bermasyarakat, berbangsa, dan bernegara dewasa ini. 2) Menyatukan masyarakat Blitar melalui acara Grebeg Pancasila yang melibatkan peran aktif masyarakat Blitar dari segala lapisan, mulai dari pelajar, wiraswasta, seniman, budayawan, pedagang, tukang becak, sopir angkutan umum, dan pegawai negeri. 3) Mengingatkan masyarakat Blitar akan indahnya keragaman. Masyarakat Blitar memiliki latar belakang budaya, etnis, dan agama yang berbeda beda. Harapannya, masyarakat mampu hidup bersatu, rukun, dan gotong royong dalam seluruh aspek kehidupan. 4) Mewujudkan adanya suatu ikon budaya yang diraykan secara rutin setiap tahunnya di Kota Blitar. Sebelumnya, di Blitar tidak ada ikon budaya yang secara rutin diperingati. Harapannya, Grebeg Pancasila akan menjadi kegiatan warga Kota Blitar rutin setiap tahun, yang juga diharapkan mampu menarik minat pengunjung/wisatawan. Namun setelah delapan tahun (delapan kali perayaan), Walikota Blitar belum menurunkan Surat
Keputusan Resmi. Selama ini dasar hukum pelaksanaan Grebeg Pancasila adalah: Perda No. 34 Tahun 2004 tentang Tata Kerja Dinas Informasi, Komunikasi, dan PariwisataDaerah (Inkomparda) Kota Blitar Hasil Seminar Pembakuan Grebeg Pancasila tanggal 22 April 2004 5.2. NilaiNilai yang Terkandung dalam Pelaksanaan Grebeg Pancasila4 Di balik perayaan Grebeg Pancasila terkandung nilainilai yang ingin diwujudkan, yaitu Nilai Politis, Nilai Ekonomi, dan Nilai Budaya Nilai Politis: memperjuangkan tegaknya Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) berdasarkan Pancasila dan UUD 1945. 2) Nilai Ekonomi: melihat bahwa biaya yang digunakan untuk perayaan Grebeg Pancasila cukup besar, maka membutuhkan kerjasama dari berbagai pihak dalam menyukseskan acara bersama tersebut. 3) Nilai Budaya: memperjuangkan kelestarian budaya bangsa Indonesia yang telah menjadi ciri khas dan kebanggaan bangsa Indonesia karena adanya keanekaragaman tersebut. Prosesi Grebeg Pancasila 4.1.1. Bedholan Grebeg Bedholan Grebeg ialah persiapan upacara Grebeg Pancasila dengan mengambil bendabenda pusaka dari Istana Gebang menuju kantor walikota Blitar oleh pasukan Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Lima5 Bendabenda pusaka yang dimaksud yaitu: a) patung lambang NKRI (Garuda Pancasila), b) foto Bung Karno, sebagai penggagas Pancasila, ideologi bangsa Indonesia, c) bendera Merah Putih, sebagai bendera pemersatu bangsa Indonesia, dan d) teks pidato Bung Karno tanggal 1 Juni 1945 di depan Sidang BPUPKI, sebagai cikal bakal Pancasila
Prosesi pengambilan bendabenda pusaka ini dilaksanakan pada 31 mei pukul 19.00 sampai selesai (tepat sehari sebelum dilaksanakannya upacara Grebeg Pancasila). 4.1.2. Upacara Budaya Upacara Budaya dilakukan pada tanggal 1 Juni pukul 07.00 sampai selesai dan berlokasi di Aloonaloon kota Blitar. Upacara ini sekaligus memperingati hari lahir Pancasila. Upacara ini dirancang dengan gaya etik dan estetik namun tanpa meninggalkan kekhidmatan dan makna sebuah upacara. Ritus upacara ini diawali dengan Ladrang Grebeg Pancasila, kemudian Ketawang Ibu Pertiwi, disusul masuknya Gunungan Lima yang dibawa oleh Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Limayang diiringi dengan iringan gendhing Lancaran Bala Pancasila. Acara puncak dari upacara Budaya tersebut adalah Sabda Kawedhar, berupa amanat Grebeg Pancasila oleh pembina upacara, yaitu walikota Blitar. Pidato tahunan ini mengakhiri rangkaian upacara yang diikuti mesyarakat seluruh kelurahan di Blitar dan aparat pemerintahan maupun keamanan. 4.1.3. Kirab Gunungan Lima Kirab Gunungan Lima merupakan penggambaran lima dasar Pancasila. Simbol itu dikawal oleh Bregada Siji, Bregada Enem, dan Bregada Patang Puluh Lima. Menurut budayawan KRT Sukardi Purwoyudho Nagoro, Gunungan Lima mempunyai filosofis tersendiri yang diharapkan dapat menjadi simbol akan tuntunan tingkah laku masyarakat. Gunungan tersebut berisiontong (jantung pisang), kacang panjang, wortel, bawang merah bawang putih, jeruk dan cabe merah. Berikut ini adalah filosofis/makna dari bentuk Gunungan dan aksesorisnya. Makna bentuk Gunungan Bentuk Gunungan yang mengerucut melambangkan masyarakat Blitar yang bersatu padu, gotongroyong menuju pada satu titik, yaitu Tuhan Yang Mahakuasa. 2. Makna aksesoris yang ada pada Gunungan Makna dari aksesoris yang terdiri dari ontong, kacang pancang, bawang merahbawang putih, cabe merah dan jeruk, serta wortel pada Gunungan adalah sebagai berikut. a) Ontong (jantung pisang) yang berada dipuncak gunungan, mengingatkan akan perlunya hati yang bersih dan mengutamakan hati nurani yang tidak hanya mengandalkan otak dan kecakapan berbicara semata. b) Kacang panjang yang tumbuh mengikutilanjarannya (patokannya). Maknanya, bahwa semua tingkah laku manusia harus selalu mengikuti norma atau aturan yang berlaku. Dengan kata lain bahwa masyarakat hendaknya patuh terhadap hukumhukum yang berlaku secara umum. c) Bawang merah bawang putih, melambangkan eksistensi ayah dan ibu. Dimana orang tua menjadi pusat hidup yang mengingatkansang kan paraning dumadi atau asalusul dan tujuan hidup di kemudian hari. Sehingga kita juga diharapkan tetap menghormati orang tua. d) Cabe merah dan jeruk melambangkan sifat kecut/asam dan pahitnya kehidupan. Sifatsfat kehidupan tersebut pasti akan dialami manusia, maka hendaknya kita selalu mengusahakan yang terbaik, setia belajar pada pengalaman, dan yang peling penting adalah berpasarah pada Sang Mahakuasa. e) Wortel merupakan sayuran luar negeri dimaknai sebagai kebudayaan luar negeri yang dapat diterima oleh budaya Indonesia. Mengenai hal ini, tentunya masyarakat sendiri diharapkan memiliki sikap selektif dalam menerima kebudayaan asing. Sehingga masyarakat Indonesia sendiri tidak larut dalam budaya yang menyesatkan. Maka dari itu, maka sikap selektif seperti ini perlulah jika bercermin dari Pancasila itu sendiri. 2. Kenduri Pancasila Sesudah upacara Grebeg Pancasila yang dilaksanakan di Aloonaloon kota Blitar, Lima Gunungan inti tersebut kemudian diarak menuju makam Bung Karno Perarakan ini melibatkan hampir seluruh masyarakat Blitar dan para pelajar Blitar sebagai bentuk partisipasi aktif bagi pelestarian budaya lokal. Prosesi terakhir dari Grebeg Pancasila ialah Kenduri Pancasila. Kenduri Pancasila yang dimaksud di sini ialah pemberian doa kepada arwah Bung Karno sebagai bentuk penghargaan bagi penggagas pembentukan Pancasila sebagai inti Ideologi bangsa Indonesia. Disini seluruh warga masyarakat boleh mengikuti Kenduri ini. Tak jarang para wisatawan dari luar kota dan orangorang yang peduli akan budaya ini juga hadir, walaupun mereka datang dari kotakota yang jauh seperti Semarang. Prosesi ini dilaksanakan di pelataran makam Bung Karno yang berada di kelurahan Bendo Gerit, kecamatan Sanan Wetan, kota Blitar. Setelah pemberian doa kepada sang Proklamator usai, acara dilanjutkan dengan Ngalap Berkah. Ngalap Berkah ialah ritus dimana Lima Gunungan yang dipakai sebagai media pemanjatan doa, diperebutkan oleh masyarakat yang meyakini bahwa gunungangunungan tadi memiliki kandungan supranatural dan diyakini membawa bala keselamatan bagi yang mengambilnya. Dalam hal ini, masyarakat yang mengambil bagianbagian dari Gunungan tersebut tetap mempercayai adanya Tuhan sebagai sumber keselamatan dan sumber yang memberi kehidupan.
Kenduri Pancasila mengandung makna penting, yaitu: 1. Supaya Bung Karno memperoleh kediaman yang layak disisiNya karena melalui dialah ideologi Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia dapat tergali. 2. Melalui kenduri ini pula khususnya masyarakat Blitar dapat hidup sejahtera, aman dan sentosa. 3. Kenduri ini juga sebagai tali pengikat silaturahmi dalam sebuah komunitas masyarakat dan aparat kota Blitar “Manunggaling Kawula lan Pangarsa”. Dari pemaparan tentang prosesi Grebeg Pancasila, dapat disimpulkan peran Grebeg Pancasila bagi masyarakat Blitar, yaitu: 1) Sebagai pemersatu masyarakat Blitar yang terdiri dari berbagai lapisan dan latar belakang budaya, etnis, maupun agama, karena di dalamnya masyarakat terlibat secara aktif. 2) Sebagai momentum masyarakat Blitar untuk mendoakan arwah Bung Karno agar mendapat tempat yang layak di sisi Tuhan. 3) Sebagai momentum untuk berkumpul bersama berdoa memohon rahmat Tuhan atas kesejahteraan hidup masyarakat Blitar. 4) Sebagai salah satu daya tarik wisata budaya di Kota Blitar yang pelaksanaannya dilakukan setiap tanggal 1 Juni. Diposting oleh completestory di 19.03
Demmurage and Damage for Detention (Maritime Law) Demurrage. A liquidated damages clause in a voyage charterparty for all time used in loading or discharging cargo from the vessel after the expiry of laytime. Laytime. The contractual time allowed to a voyage charterer within which the vessel is to be loaded and discharged. Once the laydays expire, the vessel will go on demurrage until the completion of loading or discharge. Detention. Liability of a charterer in respect of delays occurring prior to the commencement of laytime, for example, for failure to nominate a load port within a reasonable time. A ‘reasonable time’ is replaced by a set period of ‘laytime’. The charter will usually contain an exceptions clause, which provides for the suspension of laytime on the occurrence of various events interfering with loading or discharging, for example, bad weather. If loading or discharge takes longer than the permitted laytime, the charterer will generally be made liable for ‘demurrage’. This is a pre-agreed daily rate of liquidated damages, which replaces the common law liability for detention, assessed at the market rate. The laytime and demurrage calculations will cease with the completion of loading or discharge as the case may be. To encourage charterers to complete loading and discharge as soon as possible, many charters contain a ‘dispatch’ clause under which charterers become entitled to payment by the shipowner in the event that they finish these operations before the expiry of their allotted laytime. Payment is usually at half the daily rate of demurrage. The laytime provisions of the charter will identify the point at which the approach and carrying voyages end. This may be when the vessel reaches the port, in which case, the charter will be a port charter. Alternatively, it may be when the vessel reaches a berth within the port, in which case, it will be a berth charter. Charterers will generally pay for the cost of the loading and discharging operations. The issue under consideration in this chapter is identifying the party who is to pay for the time used in these operations. The Luxmar considers the four central matters which determine whether the owners can recover general damages, which will examine: (1) the nature of demurrage (2) the nature of the breach (3) whether general damages are recoverable and (4) the circumstances in which the owners may recover general damages The issue of whether general damages are available in addition to demurrage arises in circumstances where: (a) the vessel is under a voyage charter; (b) the charterparty contains a laytime clause
(c) the charterparty contains a demurrage clause;8 (d) the vessel is detained in port beyond laytime; (e) the detention is not caused by the owners; and (f) the owners seek to recover general damages on account of: (1) an additional or separate breach; and/or (2) an additional loss. By extension Demurrage refers to the charges that the charterer pays to the shipowner for its extra use of the vessel. In commercial shipping, demurrage is an ancillary cost that represents liquidated damages for delays. It occurs when the vessel is prevented from loading or discharging cargo within the stipulated laytime In Oil Industry it refers to the excess time taken to discharge or load what the case may be in excess of the allowed Laytime. Laytime is the term used to quantify the time allowed within which an operation is allowed to be made. So demurrage is laytime Consumed less laytime allowed. Demurrage can also refer to the cost levied by shipping lines to cover redecoration of the container after use by the merchant, but it could also be the charges by the shipping line to customers for not returning the container in a reasonable time. Where the charterers delay for an unreasonable period in giving orders as to the discharge port, the shipowner must accept the repudiation by the charterer. It must then mitigate its losses by discharging at the port that, in the master’s opinion, would be the one most likely to have been selected by the charterers. The charterer’s obligations regarding loading and discharge are innominate terms. Therefore, the shipowner will not generally be entitled to terminate the charter and sail off at the expiry of laytime. The right to terminate will arise only when the period of delay after the expiry of laytime may either be expressed as a period of ‘unreasonable delay’ or of delay such as to ‘frustrate the commercial purposes of the contract’. Irrespective of the charterer’s breach, the shipowner who is unreasonably delayed from entering the port or berth nominated for discharge may have a further remedy if the charter includes a ‘near’ clause. Subject to the principles set out in Chapter 10, this clause will entitle it to discharge at an alternative port. Discharge at an alternative port or berth in reliance on the clause will be subject to the same laytime and demurrage provisions as would have governed discharge at the contracted port or berth. Two further issues relating to demurrage will now be considered: whether demurrage may be suspended by laytime exceptions; and whether demurrage covers all losses suffered by the shipowner by reason of delays in the loading and discharge processes. Laytime exceptions are presumed not to apply to demurrage, hence the adage ‘once on demurrage, always on demurrage’ General charter exceptions will not cover demurrage unless they would be meaningless if demurrage were not covered. This was not the case in The Kalliopi A, where a berth charter, with a wibon clause, had no laytime exceptions clause. The general exceptions clause mutually excluded liability due to ‘unavoidable hindrances’, but was held not to exclude liability for demurrage caused by nonavailability of a berth causing the vessel to wait within the port at the pilot station. To cover demurrage, such a consequence must clearly follow from the language used in the clause. This was not the case here and the clause could take effect quite apart from dealing with liability for demurrage. Other breaches of charter may cause delays in the loading or discharging of the vessel. Such breaches are not automatically within the demurrage provisions. For example, delay may also be caused by the charterer’s failure to nominate a berth or a port within a reasonable time. This is the duty onto which the ‘reachable on arrival’ clause fastens. Once a nomination has been made, the charterer has no right to alter it in the absence of any express provision in the charter. The right to renominate must be expressly provided for in the charter and is not to be implied from a clause requiring the charterer to pay extra expenses incurred pursuant to a change in the loading or discharge port. Damages in respect of this breach will be at large and will not be governed by the demurrage clause. In The Timna, the charterers failed to nominate the port of discharge. The master went to one port and gave NOR, but the charterers eventually ordered the vessel to another port. It was held that no demurrage was earned at the port where the master gave NOR as there was no implied term that the master could nominate a discharge port if the charterers failed to do so. However, the shipowner could claim damages for detention as the charterer had been in breach of its duty to give orders for the first discharge port. It was liable for the time that elapsed from when the orders should have been given to when they were given. The shipowners were under no duty to prove that, had the charterer ordered the vessel to a port, they could have got close enough in to be ‘arrived’. If the charterers were to show that the shipowners had suffered no loss, it was incumbent upon them to prove that there was no charter port at all at which the vessel could have become an ‘arrived’ ship. If, however, the loss manifests itself as a loss of time in the loading or discharge, damages will be assessed by relation to the demurrage clause. In Chandris vIsbrandtsenMoller, the cargo was to consist of lawful general merchandise including ‘other dangerous cargo’. In breach of charter, turpentine was loaded, but with the knowledge of the master. Because of the dangerous nature of the cargo, the vessel had to unload it in the river into barges. This was held to be a breach of charter. The fact that the master consented to load the cargo did not amount to a waiver of the shipowner’s right to claim damages. However, these were governed by the demurrage clause. Loss of time due to detention in an unsafe port is also compensated in accordance with the demurrage clause and not by way of damages for detention. Where non-charter cargo is loaded, an additional rate of freight may become due from the charterer. In Stevens v Bromley, a vessel was chartered to load steel billets at a set rate. The cargo actually loaded consisted in part of general cargo, the current rate for which exceeded the charter rate. Although the demurrage clause covered any delay in loading, the shipowner was not prevented from making a further claim for additional freight by reason of agreeing to load a non-charter cargo. The demurrage provisions do not cover every loss resulting from breach of the charter provisions as to loading and discharge, but only such losses that are felt as a loss of time in such operations. The availability of general damages where there has been a single breach or multiple breaches of the charterparty are two distinct issues, have separate authorities and result in different conclusions. The two circumstances must be treated as distinct. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the facts disclose a single breach or multiple breaches. However, whether there has been a single breach or multiple breaches may be difficult to determine. The three leading cases are the English Court of Appeal decisions in The Luxmar, Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co, and Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd.24 The Luxmar and Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co concern a single breach. Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd concerns multiple breaches. The Luxmar The Luxmar is the most recent decision concerning a single breach. The decision affirms the earlier decision of the Court of Appeal and the leading case concerning single breach, Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co.
In The Luxmar, ERG agreed to sell to Chevron FOB ISAB Refinery North Side Priolo Terminal 30 000 mt +/- 10 per cent of gasoline at Chevron’s option. The contract specified laycan, laytime and demurrage. Chevron nominated the vessel Luxmar to load the cargo. The vessel arrived at the loading port and issued notice of readiness to load. The cargo was not ready because of problems at ERG’s plant. Four days after the expiry of the laycan period, Chevron terminated the contract on the basis that ERG was in breach of its obligation to deliver the cargo. ERG claimed Chevron was not entitled to terminate the contract. Chevron counter-claimed for general damages on account of late delivery of the cargo in addition to demurrage. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of Langley J at first instance that Chevron was entitled to demurrage as provided for in the demurrage provision but not to general damages for delay. Langley J approved Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co. Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co governs the circumstance where there is a single breach. In Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co, the only breach was detention of the vessel. The charterparty provided that the vessel Inverkip should proceed to the loading port to load a cargo of grain. Shortly before the vessel arrived, a tidal wave struck and damaged the shipping facilities at the loading port. The charterers nominated an alternate port. However, at the alternate port there were long delays due to port congestion. The vessel was loaded four weeks after laytime expired. The owners claimed they were entitled to recover damages of an unliquidated amount in addition to the rate of demurrage fixed by the charterparty. The Court of Appeal held that the owners could only claim the fixed rate of demurrage in the charterparty. Multiple Breach In circumstances where multiple breaches have occurred, the charterers’ liability is governed by Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd. The case raised a question of considerable general importance in shipping circles. It has been discussed in relation to the availability of damages in addition to demurrage for 80 years and remains of continuing importance. However, the case is problematic on account of the three individual and largely inconsistent judgments of Atkin, Bankes and Sargant LLJ. In Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd, the owners brought an action for breach of the charterparty. The owners alleged that the charterers failed to load a full and complete cargo.34 The question was whether the breach was satisfied by payment of demurrage at the stipulated rate or whether general damages fell upon the charterers in addition to demurrage. The facts of the case require initial consideration. Bankes LJ identified the material facts (as he saw them). The charterers ordered the vessel to load a complete cargo of timber and sail to a port in the United Kingdom, Northern France, Holland or Belgium at the charterers’ option. The charterparty detailed the requirements for loading and discharge. The vessel was delayed in completing her previous voyage. The charterers nominated a port in the United Kingdom. The Merchant Shipping Act 1906 (UK) prohibited a vessel carrying a deck cargo higher than its rails after 30 October. If loading was performed at the agreed rate, fully loaded the cargo was 850 standards and the ship could sail before 20 October. The cargo was not loaded at the agreed rate and by 23 October, the last day by which the vessel had to sail to reach a port in the United Kingdom by 30 October, only 544 standards had been loaded. The master refused to take any more cargo, stating in the deck log that the cargo was level with the height of the rails.
The members of the Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion but differed on the number and nature of the breach(es). Bankes LJ considered the facts disclosed one breach — breach of contract to load at the stipulated rate, giving rise to two distinct claims, one, detention of the vessel, two, loss of freight.38 Sargant LJ determined there were two breaches — one, breach of contract to load a full and complete cargo and two, detention of the vessel — giving rise to separate recoverable losses. As Potter J noted in Richco International Ltd v Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH (The Bonde), Atkin LJ’s judgment presents some difficulties in its analysis. Diplock LJ sitting in the Court of Appeal in Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale and Potter J in The Bonde were of the opinion that Atkin LJ determined there were two breaches. Webster J in Total Transport Corporation v Amoco Trading Co (The Altus) disagreed. Webster J considered that Atkin LJ decided that there was one breach. With respect, the former view should be preferred. Atkin LJ determined there were two breaches — one, failure to load a complete cargo by the expiry of laytime; two, the detention of the vessel. In Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale, Sellers LJ considered the majority view as to breach was derived from the decisions of Atkin and Sargant LLJ. Consequently, the case applies to circumstances where multiple breaches have occurred. Availability of General Damages Single Breach The availability of general damages where there is a single breach, the consequence of which is the detention of the vessel, is governed by Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co as affirmed by The Luxmar. The Luxmar provides that the owners cannot recover general damages in addition to demurrage where there is a single breach, the delay of the vessel. Longmore LJ (with whom Buxton LJ and Sir Martin Nourse agreed), affirming the decision of Langley J at first instance,48 held that ‘where a demurrage figure is contained in a contract it is intended to cover loss for delay and general damages for delay cannot be awarded as well’. Similarly, in Inverkip Steamship Co Ltd v Bunge & Co, Warrington and Scrutton LLJ (with whom Lord Cozens-Hardy, MR agreed) decided that where the only consequence of the breach is detention and the damages for detention are agreed in the charterparty, the owners must accept compensation at the fixed rate in respect of the detention and can recover no more. Warrington LJ said [W]hether deliberately or by inadvertence, the parties have provided that the shipowners shall accept compensation at a fixed rate in respect of the detention which as in fact occurred ... they must be content with that. Similarly, Scrutton LJ said If there was a breach … the only consequence [of which] is detention of the ship, and damages for that, which is the same detention, however it arises, are agreed in the charter and have been paid … I can see no valid legal or business reasons for helping them [to get out of their agreement].
The opinions of Mocatta J and Harman LJ in Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale support this proposition. Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale concerned the availability of general damages where the only breach was detention. Mocatta J at first instance said that, ‘for a claim for detention by a shipowner due to the laytime provisions in a charter being exceeded, the demurrage provisions quantify the damage recoverable’. Similarly, on appeal Harman LJ made clear For breaches of that kind the parties have entered into a conventional figure for damage, which is called demurrage. That being so, there is no room for saying that damages are at large. The parties have agreed that they should not be at large … The subsequent decision of the House of Lords on appeal does not affect the validity of these observations. The view that general damages are available in addition to demurrage where there is a single breach is founded on the individual minority judgment of Bankes LJ in Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd. Bankes LJ held If the [owners’] claim was in substance, though not form, a claim for detention of the vessel, the special damage here claimed for would not be recoverable. … [The owners’] claim appears to me to be both in substance and in form essentially distinct from any claim for detention of the vessel. … This loss is, in my opinion, on the facts of this case are recoverable as damages for the breach of contract to load at the agreed rate. At one time I was inclined to think that where parties had agreed a demurrage rate, the contract should be construed as one fixing the rate of damages for any breach of the obligation to load or discharge in a given time on further consideration I do not think that such a view is sound. Consequently, where the only breach is on account of the detention of the vessel, general damages are restricted to the demurrage rate. However, general damages may be available in accordance with Bankes LJ’s dicta, where the claim is essentially distinct from any the claim for detention of the vessel. Multiple Breaches The availability of general damages where there are multiple breaches is governed by Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd. In Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd, the Court of Appeal held that the owners were entitled to damages for the loss of freight on account of the charterers’ breach of their obligation to load a full and complete cargo, in addition to demurrage. In circumstances where multiple breaches have occurred general damages are available in accordance the following statement The provisions as to demurrage quantify the damages, not for the complete breach, but only such damages as arise from the detention of the vessel ... . If however, for reasons other than the shipowner’s default, the charterer becomes unable to do that which he contracted to do ... the breach is never repaired, the damages are not completely mitigated, ... the shipowner may recover the loss that he has incurred in addition to his liquidated damages or his unliquidated damages for detention. Until the House of Lords considers another case involving multiple breaches and decides to the contrary, or the Court of Appeal departs from its earlier decision, Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd will continue to apply to cases involving a multiple breaches, with the attendant uncertainty which surrounds the decision in the case. Additional and Separate Breach In order to make out a claim for general damages the owners must point to a breach additional to, or separate from, the failure to load within the lay days. In The Luxmar Langley J came to the conclusion that a separate breach was sufficient. In so concluding Langley J applied the decision of Potter J in the The Bonde. Langley J said In The Bonde, … Potter J held that, in order to advance a claim for general damages for delay …, there had to be a breach additional to or separate from that of failing to load within the laydays and/or at the agreed rate of loading, so as to establish a separate right not circumscribed the right to demurrage. To obtain general damages in addition to demurrage, therefore, the owners must establish, in accordance with the ratio decidendi of The Bonde, ‘a breach additional to or separate from that of failing to load within the lay days and/or at the agreed rate’. In The Bonde, the sellers sold to the buyers 30 000 tonnes of wheat by FOB contract. The sellers failed to load at the agreed rate. The sellers claimed the buyers were liable to pay the carrying charges in respect of the time taken by the sellers loading the vessel in excess of the loading time permitted in the contract. The buyers denied liability and the matter was referred to arbitration. The sellers were awarded demurrage the carrying charges. The buyers appealed on the ground that the sellers were limited to the demurrage rate. Potter J held that no separate right to damage in addition to demurrage arose since the buyers failed to establish an additional or separate breach. The proposition that the owners must establish a breach additional to, or separate from, the failure to load within the lay days and/or at the agreed rate is logically attractive and has received extensive support from learned commentators. The decision in The Bonde is now widely accepted and is not reasonably challenged. The further question is whether an additional or separate breach alone is sufficient or whether the owners must also have suffered additional loss. Additional Loss and Additional and/or Separate Breach The proposition that a separate breach is insufficient, and that there must also be additional loss has received some support. In The Bonde, Potter J concluded on the law
[T]he opinion I have formed upon analysis of the cases ... is that, where a charter-party contains a demurrage clause, then in order to recover damages in addition to demurrage for breach of the charterers’ obligation to complete loading within the lay days, it is a requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate that such additional loss is not only different in character from loss of use but stems from the breach of an additional and/or independent obligation. Although this statement of law did not form the ratio decidendi of The Bonde, it is at least persuasive on account of Potter J’s extensive survey of the authorities. Until the House of Lords adopts the contrary position to The Luxmar, or the Court of Appeal decides not to follow its earlier decision, the decision in The Bonde will dictate the availability of general damages with the consequence that the owners need only prove an additional or separate breach. Additional Loss/Single Breach The more contentious matter regards the availability of damages in addition to demurrage where there is a single breach. The Luxmar has placed the owners’ ability to recover on this basis into further doubt. The circumstances in which general damages are recoverable in addition to demurrage where there is a single breach are discussed in the judgments of Evans J in Adelfamar SA v Silos E Mangimi Martini SPA (The Adelfa), Devlin J in Chandris v Isbrandtsen-Moller Company, and Webster J in The Altus, along with authoritative statements in Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale. The Adelfa and The Altus hold that the owners can recover damages flowing directly or consequentially from the detention of the vessel where owners establish a distinct claim. In both cases there was a single comprehensive breach. In The Adelfa, the owners’ vessel was detained for five weeks exceeding laytime on account of there being no discharging berth available, and was subsequently arrested by the receivers of the cargo. The owners claimed from the charterers demurrage from the expiry of laytime and the sum paid for the release of the vessel. In The Altus, the charterparty provided for a minimum of 40 000 tons of crude oil to be loaded. The charterers loaded only 34 447 tons. The owners claimed that laytime expired before the vessel left the loading port. The owners sought to recover demurrage and damages for the charterers’ breach of their obligation to load the minimum 40 000 tons. In The Altus, Webster J, following the decision of Bankes LJ in Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd, considered that general damages were available in addition to demurrage where ‘the shipowner [has] in addition to a claim for demurrage attributable to the breach [on account of detention of the vessel], an “essentially” distinct claim’. Webster J interpreted the ratio decidendi of Aktieselskabet Reidar v Arcos Ltd, by which he felt bound (albeit incorrectly, it is suggested),78 as being
[W]here the charterer commits any breach, even if it is only one breach, of his obligation ... to detain the vessel for no longer than the stipulated period, the owner is entitled not only to the liquidated damages directly recoverable ... for the breach of the obligation with regard to detention (demurrage), but also for ... damages flowing indirectly or consequentially from any detention of the vessel ... . On this basis, Webster J awarded the owners general damages for their loss directly flowing from the breach of contract. This was the difference between the demurrage rate and the total loss. In The Adelfa, Evans J decided that owners can recover general damages where there is a single breach in the circumstances of a particular case. Those circumstances are where the owners establish a head of loss recoverable for the charterers’ breach of the charterparty which is distinct from the loss of use of the vessel. Further, the owners must prove the loss which they incurred was caused by the charterers’ failure to discharge the cargo within laytime and that the loss was not too remote in consequence of that breach. Where the necessary causal connection is present, the owners may recover, not only liquidated damages directly recoverable from the detention, but also damages flowing indirectly or consequentially from the detention. In The Bonde, counsel argued that where the obligation of the owners is simply to provide a vessel to load at the relevant place and the obligation of the charterers is to load the cargo on board, it will be rare for any consequence to flow from exceeding the lay days other than detention of the vessel beyond the time contractually agreed with consequently loss of use. Nevertheless, such loss could foreseeably include additional berth charges, harbour dues, and the costs of defouling.
However, the decision of the Court of Appeal in The Luxmar would seem to deny the availability of general damages in circumstances where there is a single breach. In The Luxmar, a case which involved a single breach, Langley J held that a separate breach was required. Langley J approved The Bonde. In The Bonde, Potter J decided that there had to be a breach additional to or separate from that of failing to load within the laydays and/or at the agreed rate of loading. Implicitly, an additional loss was insufficient. Even under the wider test in the summary of the case law given by Potter J, the additional loss must stem from the breach of an additional and/or independent obligation. Langley J did not discuss The Adelfa or The Altus. Nevertheless, there would appear little room for their application unless the owners distinguish The Luxmar on the facts. In order to recover additional losses arising from the detention of the vessel, owners will have to factor the potential occurrence of such losses into the demurrage rate. Diposting oleh completestory di 19.01
Postingan Lebih Baru
Beranda
Postingan Lama
Langganan: Postingan (Atom)
Tema Sederhana. Gambar tema oleh luoman. Diberdayakan oleh Blogger.