Time Charter vs. Voyage Charter under Turkish Maritime Law: Key Legal Differences

Introduction

Charterparties are among the most important contractual instruments used in international shipping.

However, the term “charterparty” does not refer to a single type of contract.

Depending on the commercial structure of the transaction, a ship may be made available for a particular voyage, for a specified period of time or, in some circumstances, with possession and operational control transferred to another party.

Among these arrangements, time charters and voyage charters are particularly common.

Although they may appear commercially similar because both involve the use of a vessel, they are legally different contractual structures.

This distinction is particularly important under Turkish maritime law.

The Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 (“TCC”) expressly regulates time charter contracts separately from contracts for the carriage of goods by sea.

Under Article 1131 TCC, a time charter is a contract under which the party providing the vessel undertakes, for remuneration, to place the commercial management of an equipped vessel at the disposal of the charterer for a specified period.

The technical management of the vessel remains with the party providing the vessel, who also remains the possessor of the ship.

A voyage charter, by contrast, is regulated under Article 1138 as a type of contract for the carriage of goods by sea. In a voyage charter, the carrier undertakes, in return for freight, to transport cargo by sea while allocating all or part of the vessel, or a specified space on the vessel, to the charterer.

This distinction affects almost every important aspect of the contractual relationship:

• who commercially controls the vessel;
• who determines the voyages;
• who pays fuel and operating expenses;
• whether payment is described as hire or freight;
• who bears delay-related risks;
• whether the off-hire mechanism is relevant;
• whether laytime and demurrage apply;
• the extent of the carrier’s cargo obligations;
• the consequences of late redelivery; and
• how liability is allocated between the parties.

For shipowners, operators, charterers, exporters, importers and cargo interests doing business in Turkey, understanding the difference between a time charter and a voyage charter under Turkish maritime law is therefore essential before entering into a charterparty.

What Is a Time Charter under Turkish Law?

Article 1131 TCC provides the statutory definition of a time charter.

A time charter is an agreement under which the provider of an equipped vessel transfers the commercial management of the vessel to the charterer for a specified period in return for remuneration.

At the same time, the provider retains the vessel’s technical management and remains in possession of the vessel.

This division between commercial and technical management is the central characteristic of the Turkish-law time charter.

The legislative reasoning to Article 1131 makes the distinction even clearer.

Unlike a ship lease, possession of the vessel is not transferred to the time charterer. Instead, only commercial management is placed at the charterer’s disposal. The provider remains responsible for technical management and does not, merely by entering into the time charter, undertake toward the charterer to transport particular cargo. For this reason, the Turkish legislature does not classify the time charter itself as a contract of affreightment.

This is a particularly important point for international practitioners.

In English maritime terminology, charterparties are frequently discussed together as contracts concerning the employment of vessels. Under the structure of the Turkish Commercial Code, however, the legal classification is more specific.

A time charter is separately regulated under Articles 1131–1137, while a voyage charter falls within the provisions concerning contracts for the carriage of goods by sea beginning with Article 1138. Academic commentary on the 2012 reform similarly emphasises that Turkish law intentionally separated time charters from voyage charter contracts.

What Is a Voyage Charter under Turkish Law?

Article 1138 TCC regulates voyage charters within the chapter dealing with freight contracts.

Under a voyage charter, the carrier undertakes to transport goods by sea in return for freight and allocates to the charterer:

• the entire vessel;
• part of the vessel; or
• a specified space on the vessel.

The essential commercial objective is therefore carriage of identified cargo on a particular voyage or voyages.

The allocation of vessel space should not be confused with transfer of possession or general commercial management of the vessel.

The carrier remains the party undertaking carriage.

Accordingly, in a typical voyage charter the carrier decides and performs the maritime transportation required by the contract, subject to the agreed loading port, discharge port, cargo, laycan and other charterparty terms.

The voyage charterer principally obtains transportation capacity for the agreed voyage rather than the commercial employment of the vessel for a continuing period.

The Most Important Difference: Time versus Voyage

The simplest way to understand the distinction is through the commercial unit around which the contract is structured.

A time charter is organised primarily around time.

The vessel’s commercial employment is placed at the charterer’s disposal for a period such as:

• three months;
• six months;
• one year;
• two years; or
• another agreed period.

A voyage charter is organised primarily around a specific voyage or transportation operation.

For example:

carriage of 25,000 metric tons of steel from Iskenderun to Rotterdam.

The voyage charter ends when the contractual transportation and associated obligations are completed, subject to the specific terms of the contract.

A time charter, however, may allow the charterer to employ the vessel for numerous voyages within the agreed trading limits throughout the charter period.

Commercial Management in a Time Charter

Article 1134 TCC expressly provides that the commercial management of the vessel belongs to the time charterer.

The master must comply with the time charterer’s instructions concerning commercial management, provided that those instructions fall within the framework of the time charter contract.

This means that the charterer may, within contractual trading limits, determine matters such as:

• commercial employment of the vessel;
• ports to which the vessel will proceed;
• cargoes to be carried;
• commercial voyage sequence;
• commercial instructions concerning loading and discharge;
• employment under sub-charters, where permitted.

However, this commercial authority is not unlimited.

The charterer cannot lawfully require the master to expose the vessel to unsafe conditions or disregard mandatory maritime safety rules.

The distinction between a commercial instruction and a technical or navigational decision therefore becomes highly important.

Technical Management in a Time Charter

Although commercial management is transferred to the time charterer, technical management remains with the provider of the vessel.

Article 1133 requires that party to assume technical management and:

• make the agreed vessel available at the agreed time and place; and
• maintain the vessel throughout the charter period in a condition that is seaworthy, voyage-worthy and suitable for the contractual purpose.

Technical management generally includes matters connected with the physical operation and safety of the vessel, such as:

• maintenance;
• repairs;
• crewing;
• technical equipment;
• safety systems;
• compliance with vessel requirements;
• navigation and shipboard technical operation.

The master and crew therefore remain connected with the technical management structure maintained by the vessel provider.

This is fundamentally different from a bareboat charter, where possession and much wider operational control may pass to the charterer.

Commercial Management in a Voyage Charter

In a voyage charter, the charterer does not acquire the same continuing commercial management power recognised in Article 1134 for a time charter.

The voyage charterer contracts for carriage of cargo on the agreed voyage.

The carrier remains responsible for performing that maritime carriage.

The voyage charterparty may naturally grant the charterer important contractual rights concerning matters such as:

• nomination of loading or discharge ports within agreed ranges;
• loading and discharge arrangements;
• cargo quantity;
• notices;
• laydays and cancelling dates;
• documentary requirements.

But these rights should not be confused with the general transfer of the vessel’s commercial management that characterises a time charter.

This difference is central to understanding risk allocation.

Hire versus Freight

Another major difference concerns payment.

Time Charter: Hire

Under a time charter, the charterer pays a time charter hire or allocation fee.

Article 1136 provides, as the statutory default rule, that the hire is payable monthly and in advance beginning from the date on which commercial management of the vessel is actually placed at the charterer’s disposal in accordance with the contract.

Commercial charter forms may naturally provide different payment periods.

For example, hire may be payable every fifteen days in advance.

The essential point is that the payment is connected primarily to the period during which the vessel is commercially available to the charterer.

Voyage Charter: Freight

Under a voyage charter, the consideration is freight.

Freight is paid in return for the carrier’s undertaking to transport the agreed cargo on the agreed voyage.

It may be calculated:

• per metric ton;
• per cubic metre;
• per unit;
• as a lump-sum freight; or
• according to another agreed formula.

The economic distinction is therefore straightforward:

Time charter = payment primarily for time and commercial availability of the vessel.

Voyage charter = payment primarily for the agreed carriage of cargo.

Allocation of Operating Expenses

The allocation of operating expenses is another major distinction between the two contracts.

Expenses under a Time Charter

Article 1135 provides that the time charterer bears the expenses arising from the commercial operation of the vessel.

The provision specifically refers to the cost of providing fuel of the quality and quantity necessary for regular operation of the vessel’s machinery.

In practice, depending on the charterparty, expenses commonly borne by the time charterer may include:

• bunkers;
• port charges;
• canal charges;
• certain agency charges;
• costs related to commercial employment.

By contrast, expenses associated with technical management generally remain on the vessel provider’s side.

This may include matters such as:

• crew wages;
• technical maintenance;
• ordinary repairs;
• vessel insurance, depending on contractual arrangements;
• costs necessary to preserve the technical condition of the ship.

Expenses under a Voyage Charter

The economic structure is different under a voyage charter.

The carrier typically calculates voyage-related operating expenditure when negotiating the freight.

Fuel consumption, voyage duration and many vessel-operating costs therefore remain economically relevant to the carrier.

The precise allocation may nevertheless be modified by charterparty clauses.

Loading and discharge expressions such as FIO, FIOS or FIOST may shift important costs and responsibilities to the voyage charterer.

Consequently, the written charterparty remains essential.

Fuel Price Risk

The difference becomes particularly visible when bunker prices rise sharply.

Assume that fuel prices increase by 30% after the contract is concluded.

Under a standard time charter structure, because bunkers are generally part of commercial operating expenses borne by the charterer under Article 1135, the economic effect may fall primarily on the time charterer.

Under a voyage charter, the carrier has normally agreed a freight for the voyage and remains economically exposed to many voyage costs unless the charterparty contains a bunker adjustment or similar mechanism.

Therefore, the same increase in fuel prices can affect the parties very differently depending upon whether the contract is a time charter or voyage charter.

The Off-Hire Concept in Time Charters

One of the most characteristic mechanisms of a time charter is off-hire.

Article 1136 TCC contains a statutory form of this principle.

Where the vessel remains inactive for at least twenty-four hours and is not commercially usable during that period, hire is not payable for the period in which the vessel cannot be commercially used.

This reflects the fundamental economic logic of a time charter.

The charterer pays because the vessel is available for commercial employment.

If the vessel becomes commercially unavailable because of a qualifying event, payment may cease for the relevant period.

Modern charterparty forms often contain much more detailed off-hire clauses addressing circumstances such as:

• machinery breakdown;
• crew deficiency;
• dry docking;
• detention;
• strikes affecting the vessel;
• technical failures;
• accidents;
• quarantine;
• other causes preventing full working of the vessel.

Academic analysis of time charter disputes confirms that off-hire clauses play a major role in determining the allocation of delay risk.

Why Off-Hire Is Different from Demurrage

Off-hire and demurrage are sometimes confused, but legally they serve almost opposite functions.

Off-hire is principally associated with time charters.

It may suspend the charterer’s obligation to pay hire when the vessel is unavailable for commercial use.

Demurrage, by contrast, is principally associated with voyage charters.

It compensates the carrier for additional waiting beyond the contractual laytime when the statutory and contractual requirements are satisfied.

In simple terms:

Off-hire protects the time charterer against qualifying vessel unavailability.

Demurrage compensates the voyage carrier for qualifying excessive loading or discharge delay.

This distinction is one of the clearest practical differences between the two charter structures.

Laytime in Voyage Charter Contracts

Laytime is a central concept in voyage charter law.

The charterer is allowed an agreed or legally determined period to complete loading or discharge operations.

Where discharge time has not been contractually fixed, Article 1169 TCC determines the relevant period by considering the time that would reasonably be required for continuous twenty-four-hour discharge, taking into account:

• the port;
• the vessel;
• discharge facilities;
• characteristics of the goods;
• port regulations; and
• local custom.

Similar principles govern loading operations.

Because the carrier earns freight for the voyage rather than continuous time-based hire, excessive delay in port can seriously undermine the commercial economics of the voyage.

Laytime and demurrage rules allocate that risk.

Demurrage under Turkish Law

Article 1170 TCC provides that where demurrage has been agreed, the carrier must wait beyond the ordinary discharge period for the additional demurrage period.

If the charterparty refers to demurrage or demurrage money but does not specify the duration, the default statutory period is ten days.

The demurrage period begins automatically when laytime expires, without the need for an additional notice.

Article 1171 then regulates demurrage payment.

Where an amount has been contractually agreed, the carrier cannot demand more than the agreed amount as demurrage. If no amount has been specified, necessary and useful expenses arising from the additional waiting period may be claimed under the statutory regime.

For this reason, voyage charterparties commonly contain detailed provisions defining:

• laytime;
• commencement of laytime;
• weather interruptions;
• holidays;
• working days;
• notice of readiness;
• demurrage rates.

A poorly drafted clause can generate a dispute worth more than the freight itself.

Seaworthiness under Time Charter and Voyage Charter

Seaworthiness is important under both structures, but its legal operation differs.

Time Charter

Article 1133 requires the vessel provider to keep the vessel seaworthy, voyage-worthy and suitable for the agreed purpose throughout the time charter period.

This is logical because technical management remains with the provider.

Voyage Charter

Voyage charter contracts fall within the statutory carriage regime.

Article 1141 requires the carrier to ensure that the vessel is seaworthy, voyage-worthy and cargo-worthy.

The carrier may be liable to cargo interests for damage caused by unseaworthiness unless the relevant defect could not have been discovered before commencement of the voyage despite the diligence expected from a prudent carrier. The Turkish legal literature continues to treat this obligation as a fundamental element of carrier liability.

Thus, seaworthiness remains essential under both contracts, but the surrounding statutory regimes are not identical.

Cargo Liability: A Major Structural Difference

A particularly important legal distinction concerns cargo liability.

The legislative reasoning for Article 1131 expressly states that the provider under a time charter does not, merely by entering into that time charter, undertake toward the time charterer to transport cargo.

For that reason, the time charter itself is not classified as a freight contract under Turkish law.

The time charterer may itself conclude contracts of carriage with cargo interests.

In such a situation, the legal analysis must distinguish between:

• the internal time charter relationship; and
• the external contract of carriage.

A voyage charter is fundamentally different.

The carrier expressly undertakes to transport cargo and therefore falls directly within the statutory framework governing carriage of goods by sea.

This distinction becomes crucial when cargo is lost or damaged.

Responsibility of the Time Charterer for Commercial Management

Article 1137 TCC provides that the time charterer is responsible for losses suffered by the vessel provider as a result of the commercial management of the vessel.

This rule reflects the allocation of control.

Because the time charterer determines commercial employment, it must bear legal consequences associated with improper commercial instructions.

Potential disputes may concern:

• nomination of unsafe ports;
• carriage of unsuitable cargo;
• breach of trading limits;
• commercially unreasonable instructions;
• consequences of charterer’s orders;
• damage resulting from cargo operations.

Whether a specific loss arises from commercial or technical management may therefore become one of the most important legal questions in a time charter dispute.

Responsibility for Delay

Delay risk operates differently under the two contracts.

Time Charter

Because hire generally continues with time, delays occurring during commercial employment may economically affect the charterer unless the vessel goes off-hire or another contractual exception applies.

If congestion keeps the vessel waiting at a port nominated as part of its lawful commercial employment, the charterer may continue paying hire.

The exact result depends on the charterparty.

Voyage Charter

The carrier bears the time risk of the voyage to a larger extent because freight is usually fixed for the voyage.

However, loading and discharge delay is allocated through laytime and demurrage.

Once the charterer’s permitted laytime expires, demurrage may shift the financial consequences of additional delay to the charterer.

Thus, the contracts allocate time risk using very different mechanisms.

Redelivery under a Time Charter

A time charterer must return the vessel when the agreed charter period ends.

Article 1137 requires redelivery at the contractually specified place and in the contractually required condition.

Turkish law also provides a significant consequence for late redelivery.

If the charterer fails to redeliver the vessel on time, it must pay twice the hire applicable at the expiry of the charter for the period of delay, unless a higher loss is proven.

This provision can create substantial exposure.

Imagine that a vessel is due to be redelivered on 1 October but the final commercial voyage does not permit redelivery until 15 October.

The charterer may face liability beyond ordinary hire for that period.

This issue has no direct equivalent in the normal structure of a completed single-voyage charter because the commercial relationship is not built around redelivery following a continuing period of commercial management.

Does the Time Charterer Become the Shipowner?

No.

This is another important misconception.

Article 1131 expressly states that the party retaining technical management remains the possessor of the vessel.

The time charterer receives commercial management, not ownership or possession of the ship.

Accordingly, the time charter should not be confused with a bareboat charter.

The legislative reasoning emphasises that the time charterer does not become the equivalent of a shipowner merely because it commercially employs the vessel.

Does the Voyage Charterer Become the Shipowner?

Again, no.

A voyage charterer merely obtains the agreed vessel capacity for the contracted transportation.

The ship remains operated within the carrier’s maritime management structure.

The fact that the entire vessel is allocated to one charterer for a voyage does not transfer ownership or possession.

This distinction is particularly important when third-party claims arise.

Time Charter versus Bareboat Charter

Although this article focuses on time and voyage charters, it is useful to distinguish both from a bareboat charter.

Under a bareboat charter, the ship may effectively be placed in the charterer’s possession without the owner’s crew and operational structure.

The charterer consequently assumes much wider responsibility for the vessel’s management.

Turkish legal scholarship confirms that ship lease arrangements are separately regulated and should not be treated as identical to either time charter or voyage charter structures.

Therefore:

Bareboat charter: possession and extensive operational control pass to the charterer.

Time charter: commercial management passes, but technical management and possession remain with the provider.

Voyage charter: the carrier undertakes to transport cargo on an agreed voyage and allocates vessel capacity for that purpose.

Comparison Table: Time Charter vs. Voyage Charter under Turkish Law

Practical Example: Time Charter

Assume that Company A makes a bulk carrier available to Company B for twelve months.

Company A provides the vessel, maintains technical management and keeps the vessel seaworthy.

Company B commercially employs the vessel.

During the twelve-month period, Company B may order voyages between permitted ports, subject to the charterparty’s trading limits.

Company B pays hire every agreed payment period and bears bunkers and relevant commercial operating expenses.

If the vessel suffers a qualifying engine failure and becomes commercially unusable, an off-hire issue may arise.

At the end of twelve months, Company B must redeliver the vessel according to the charterparty.

This arrangement has the classic characteristics of a time charter.

Practical Example: Voyage Charter

Assume instead that Company B contracts with Carrier A to transport 30,000 metric tons of grain from Mersin to Alexandria.

The vessel is allocated for that transportation.

The freight is fixed at USD 25 per metric ton.

Carrier A bears the normal voyage operation within the contractual allocation.

The charterparty provides three days of loading laytime and three days of discharge laytime.

If loading continues beyond the permitted period, demurrage may become payable at the contractual daily rate.

Once the cargo is transported and discharged and the contractual voyage is completed, the voyage charter has fulfilled its commercial objective.

This is a voyage charter structure.

Which Contract Is More Suitable?

Neither structure is inherently superior.

The correct choice depends on the commercial objective.

A Time Charter May Be Preferable Where:

A company needs continuing access to vessel capacity.

The charterer wants flexibility to determine several voyages over a period.

The charterer is willing to bear fuel-price and commercial employment risks.

The business has sufficient shipping expertise to manage vessel employment.

A Voyage Charter May Be Preferable Where:

Only one shipment or a defined series of shipments is required.

The cargo owner does not want to manage vessel employment continuously.

Freight certainty for the specific voyage is important.

The parties prefer to allocate loading and discharge delays through laytime and demurrage.

Important Clauses in a Time Charter

A properly drafted time charter should address issues including:

• charter period;
• delivery location;
• redelivery location;
• trading limits;
• permitted cargoes;
• unsafe-port restrictions;
• hire amount;
• hire payment dates;
• off-hire;
• bunkers on delivery and redelivery;
• speed and consumption warranties;
• maintenance;
• dry docking;
• commercial instructions;
• indemnities;
• bills of lading;
• sub-chartering;
• sanctions;
• war risks;
• termination;
• governing law;
• arbitration or jurisdiction.

Because commercial management is transferred, trading limits and permitted cargo provisions are particularly important.

Important Clauses in a Voyage Charter

A voyage charter should normally address:

• identity of vessel;
• cargo type;
• cargo quantity;
• loading port;
• discharge port;
• laydays;
• cancelling date;
• freight rate;
• freight payment;
• notice of readiness;
• loading rate;
• discharge rate;
• laytime;
• demurrage;
• despatch, where agreed;
• loading and stowage responsibility;
• FIO/FIOS/FIOST provisions;
• safe-port obligations;
• bills of lading;
• deviation;
• war risks;
• sanctions;
• force majeure;
• governing law;
• arbitration or jurisdiction.

In voyage charter disputes, laytime wording frequently becomes one of the most commercially significant parts of the agreement.

Standard Charterparty Forms and Turkish Law

International maritime practice frequently relies on standard forms developed by organisations such as BIMCO.

These forms are commercially useful because they employ established terminology and allocate complex risks efficiently.

However, the parties should not assume that an international standard form will always be interpreted exactly as it would be under English law when Turkish law governs the agreement.

Turkish legislation expressly classifies time and voyage charters differently.

Academic analysis has noted that international standard provisions are often drafted according to concepts developed under English law, while Turkish law has its own statutory classification and mandatory framework.

Accordingly, a Turkish-law review should be carried out before standard clauses are adopted without modification.

Force Majeure, Sanctions and Charterparty Performance

Modern charter disputes increasingly involve sanctions, war risks and governmental restrictions.

These issues may affect both time and voyage charters, but the legal consequences depend heavily on the contractual structure.

Recent Turkish maritime scholarship concerning sanctions arising from the Russia–Ukraine war has emphasised that, in voyage charter disputes, the contractual sanctions clause should normally be examined first. In the absence of a decisive clause, unforeseeability and the degree to which performance has become excessively burdensome may become relevant under Turkish law.

Similar attention should be given to:

• sanctions clauses;
• war-risk clauses;
• safe-port clauses;
• force-majeure clauses;
• termination rights.

Generic force-majeure drafting may be insufficient for sophisticated charter transactions.

Common Time Charter Disputes

Time charter disputes commonly concern:

• unpaid hire;
• off-hire;
• excessive fuel consumption;
• speed warranties;
• engine performance;
• unsafe-port nominations;
• prohibited cargo;
• commercial instructions;
• late redelivery;
• damage caused during cargo operations;
• allocation of port expenses;
• sanctions and trading restrictions.

Many of these disputes arise from the fundamental division between commercial and technical management.

The first legal question should therefore often be:

Was the event connected with commercial management or technical management of the vessel?

Common Voyage Charter Disputes

Voyage charter disputes frequently concern:

• freight;
• cargo quantity;
• deadfreight;
• notice of readiness;
• laytime calculations;
• demurrage;
• loading responsibility;
• stowage;
• discharge;
• seaworthiness;
• cargo damage;
• cancellation;
• delay;
• safe ports;
• incorporation of charterparty terms into bills of lading.

The key contractual question is often not how long the charterer controlled the vessel, but whether the agreed transportation was properly performed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a time charter a contract of carriage under Turkish law?

Not by itself.

The legislative reasoning to Article 1131 expressly explains that the vessel provider under the time charter does not undertake cargo carriage toward the time charterer merely by concluding the time charter. Turkish law therefore regulates it separately from contracts of affreightment.

Is a voyage charter a contract of carriage?

Yes.

Article 1138 expressly regulates voyage charter as a form of maritime freight contract under which the carrier undertakes transportation of goods in return for freight.

Who controls the vessel under a time charter?

Commercial management belongs to the time charterer, while technical management remains with the vessel provider.

Who pays fuel under a time charter?

Under the statutory default rule in Article 1135, expenses arising from commercial operation, specifically including fuel required for regular operation of the vessel’s machinery, are borne by the time charterer.

What is off-hire?

Off-hire describes circumstances in which hire is not payable because the vessel is unavailable for commercial use. Article 1136 contains a statutory rule under which hire is not payable for a period of commercial unavailability where the vessel’s inactivity exceeds twenty-four hours.

What is demurrage?

Demurrage is payment due for agreed additional waiting beyond the ordinary loading or discharge laytime in a voyage charter. Under Article 1170, where demurrage has been agreed but no period specified, the Turkish statutory default period is ten days.

Does the time charterer own or possess the vessel?

No. Article 1131 provides that the party retaining technical management remains the vessel’s possessor.

What happens if the vessel is returned late under a time charter?

Under Article 1137, late redelivery may make the time charterer liable for twice the applicable hire for the period of delay, unless a higher loss is proven.

Conclusion

The distinction between a time charter and a voyage charter under Turkish maritime law is far more than a difference in terminology.

The two contracts are built upon fundamentally different legal and commercial structures.

Under Article 1131 of the Turkish Commercial Code, a time charter transfers the commercial management of an equipped vessel to the charterer for an agreed period in exchange for hire.

Technical management and possession remain with the vessel provider.

The charterer controls the commercial employment of the vessel within the limits of the contract and generally bears commercial operating expenses, including bunker costs.

The hire mechanism reflects the continuing availability of the vessel.

Where the vessel becomes commercially unusable, the statutory and contractual off-hire regime may suspend payment.

The charterer must ultimately redeliver the vessel, and late redelivery can create substantial liability.

A voyage charter is different.

Under Article 1138 TCC, the carrier undertakes to transport cargo by sea in return for freight and allocates all or part of the vessel for that particular transportation.

The commercial objective is therefore the performance of a defined voyage rather than continuing commercial employment of the vessel.

Freight replaces time-based hire as the principal consideration.

Laytime and demurrage become central mechanisms for allocating the risk of loading and discharge delay.

The voyage charterer does not acquire the continuing commercial management authority enjoyed by a time charterer.

This distinction also affects cargo liability.

The time charter itself does not inherently constitute a contract for carriage of goods under the Turkish Commercial Code. The time charterer may separately undertake carriage obligations toward cargo interests.

By contrast, cargo transportation is the fundamental legal obligation in a voyage charter.

For this reason, simply describing an agreement as a “charterparty” is insufficient.

Before determining rights and liabilities, the contract must first be legally classified.

The most important questions are:

Is the vessel being commercially employed for a period of time, or is cargo being transported on a particular voyage?

Who controls commercial management?

Who retains technical management and possession?

Is payment calculated as hire or freight?

Who bears bunker and port costs?

Does an off-hire regime apply?

Are loading and discharge governed by laytime and demurrage?

Who undertakes cargo carriage toward third parties?

Is there an obligation to redeliver the vessel at the end of a charter period?

The answers to these questions determine the contractual classification and therefore the parties’ legal rights.

For companies entering into charterparty transactions involving Turkish ports, Turkish parties or Turkish governing law, the agreement should therefore be reviewed not only according to international shipping practice but also according to the specific classification adopted by the Turkish Commercial Code.

A clause developed for an English-law charter form may not necessarily produce identical consequences when Turkish law applies.

Proper drafting should therefore clearly separate commercial management, technical management, operating expenses, freight or hire, off-hire, laytime, demurrage, cargo responsibility, redelivery, termination and dispute resolution.

In substantial charterparty transactions, correctly identifying whether the agreement is a time charter or voyage charter is often the first and most important step in determining who ultimately bears the commercial and legal risk.

This article provides general information concerning Turkish maritime and commercial law and does not constitute legal advice. Charterparty disputes should be assessed individually according to the specific contractual wording, applicable Turkish Commercial Code provisions, bills of lading, standard charter forms, international conventions, governing-law clauses and the factual circumstances of the relevant voyage or charter period.