Andino Chemical Shipping Co. v. Aectra Refining & Marketing
Society of Maritime Arbitrators
Award No. 2254 (1986)

- Written by Alex Ruskell, JD
Facts
Andino Chemical Shipping Co. (Andino) (plaintiff) sued Aectra Refining & Marketing (Aectra) (defendant) for failing to make good on a guaranty of arrival at port by June 30, which would have let Andino earn special credits from government authorities. Andino and Aectra entered a charter agreement to deliver petroleum products on a vessel owned by Aectra. Aectra’s vessel got a late start, and on June 25, when Andino realized that the vessel might not arrive by June 30, Andino entered into further discussions with Aectra. Andino claimed that Aectra orally made a guaranty of a June 30 arrival. However, during these discussions, the parties had used “guaranty” and “best efforts” interchangeably. There was no documentation stating that any guaranty existed and no indication that the parties had discussed a guaranty as a condition of the initial agreement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gyory, Chairman)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.