Salvage denied, tug charge accepted.

Referring to your claim for alleged salvage of my vessel by two of your port tugs while rendering assistance in taking my vessel off the shoal and towing her into port on 21st inst. I would like to state following. I regret to decline all your claims for paying salvage. Such services have never been rendered to my vessel. Otherwise, the fact would have been substantiated by relevant documents, e. g. Salvage Contract, or recorded evidence of my agreement to sign it.

Please take notice that at the time of the occurrence nobody offered me to sign a Lloyd's Salvage Contract. If such term had been offered by the Harbor Master or by the tug's Master, they would have been rejected by me, as there was no immediate danger to the ship. In my opinion taking my vessel off the ground, carried out by the tugs was within the scope of duties of the Port Authorities: I agree, therefore to pay ordinary towing expenses in case you submit a proper bill for the work done.

 

 

AN OFFER OF AMICABLE SETTLEMENT(A LETTER TO THE

PORT MASTER).

Referring to your Statement of Facts about our contact with pier when shifting to Berth 3 at 14. 48 today, I would like to state the following:

According to my agent, B. Lee, the cost of replacement of the damaged rubbing piece is about US$ 500.

Though parting of tow line which led to damage is not the ship's fault, and the amount of damage is not known, as it can ascertained only after the ship's departure, in order to save time and unnecessary expenses, I am ready to pay the above sum for replacement of the damaged rubbing piece without an

official survey.

 

 

TO TRACE A LOST CONTAINER.

We refer to the exchange of letters during our last call at your port on our previous voyage on 27th of January, 2012, concerning container N 179821 under our B/L n 172. According to our Discharge Record dated 25th of January, 2012 this container had been duly discharged from our vessel, but the Consignees, Messrs. M. Windsfield and Co. Inc., claimed that it had not reached them. At was agreed on that occasion you were to look into this matter and carry out an appropriate investigation.

We should be obliged if you let us have the results of the investigation.

 

 

TO RELEASE THE DETAINED VESSEL (TO THE PORT

MASTER)

As you must know, my vessel has been under arrest following the collision with m. v. "Osaka Maru". On account of the above the vessel is unable to continue her voyage, and

the Shipowners are suffering loses. Today I have received a telex from the Owners in which they express consent to refund damages sustained by the Owners of the m. v. "Osaka Maru" and authorize me to sign the appropriate documents.

Kindly make urgent arrangements to release my vessel.

 

 

SCRATCH DAMAGE TO CARS.

In reply to your claim concerning scratch damage to the consignment of cars delivered to you under B/Ls 21-121 at our previous call in Montreal on September 11, 2008 I wish to advise you that loading and securing of the consignment in the ships' holds and on her deck were carried out in full compliance with the existing regulations for transportation of automobiles. Before commencement of loading the shipper's surveyors was called on board. He inspected the cargo compartments and drew up a report stating that the vessel was fit for transporting automobiles and met all requirements of said regulations. He also supervised the loading and inspected the cargo after loading, and, as you may see from his report attached herewith, found no fault with the securing and no damage of the said automobiles.

As 20 cars of this consignment for which we found no place in the ships' holds were shipped on deck, while signing the Bill of Lading covering this transport, I made a remark "Shipped on deck at Shipper's risk, Owner not responsible for slight scratch damage to uncrated cars", which, as I understand, relieves the Carrier of liability for the scratch damage and a few small dents found on 12 cars from those shipped on deck.