When Does a Freight Claim Arise? Freight Refunds, Freight Differences, and Common Freight Disputes

In carriage of goods by sea, freight (navlun) is not merely a transportation fee. In practice, it is a core receivable that simultaneously affects delivery mechanics, cash flow, Bill of Lading (B/L) payment markings, insurance coordination, and—very often—security leverage over cargo (through contractual and statutory tools that shape whether cargo is released before payment). For that reason, most freight disputes do not arise from a simple “How much is the freight?” question. They arise from deeper, legally decisive questions such as:

• When does the freight claim arise (accrue)?

• When does it become due and payable (mature)?

• When must freight be refunded?

• How is a “freight difference” calculated and proved?

• Who is the freight debtor in practice: shipper, consignee, charterer, or another party?

This article explains these issues through the lens of the Turkish Commercial Code (TCC / Türk Ticaret Kanunu – TTK) and common maritime practice, focusing on freight maturity, freight refunds, freight difference disputes, and the litigation-proof documentation strategies that prevent avoidable conflicts.

1) “Accrual” and “Maturity” Are Not the Same: Two Stages You Must Separate

One of the most frequent mistakes in freight cases is treating the question “When does the freight claim arise?” as identical to “When can freight be demanded and paid?” They are not always the same moment.

A) When does a freight claim arise (accrue)?

As a general commercial logic, freight is the price of the carrier’s performance. The carrier’s entitlement strengthens as the carrier performs the carriage undertaking. However, even if the right to freight is “earned” in a broad sense, the practical question in litigation is usually: Has the freight become payable? That requires examining the statutory maturity rule and the contractual payment clause.

B) When does freight become due and payable (mature)? (TCC Article 1197)

The TCC provides a clear maturity rule:

Freight becomes due at the time delivery of the goods is requested, and in any event at the end of the laytime / discharge period.

This rule has two critical consequences in day-to-day disputes:

1. A delivery request can trigger maturity.

2. Even if there is no clear delivery request, freight becomes payable at the latest when the discharge period ends—the law sets a hard outer limit.

In short: freight does not remain “floating” indefinitely. The TCC ties maturity to delivery demand and, at the latest, to the end of discharge time.

2) Freight Refunds: When Must Freight Be Returned?

When practitioners say “freight refund,” they typically refer to two different patterns:

• Refund of prepaid freight (freight prepaid but later legally becomes non-payable), and

• Refund of incorrectly charged or over-collected freight (wrong tariff, wrong measurement basis, duplicated surcharges, or other billing errors).

A) Loss of goods due to an /accident: freight is not payable; if prepaid, it is refunded (TCC Article 1199)

The TCC sets out a textbook freight-refund scenario:

For goods that are lost due to an accident until the end of the discharge period, no freight is payable; if freight was prepaid, it must be refunded.

This is the backbone of many freight refund files. The legal analysis usually turns on:

• Timing: the loss must occur until the end of the discharge period.

• Cause: the loss must be the result of an accident (the characterization and evidence of the event matter).

• Prepayment: if freight was prepaid, a refund claim arises.

B) Lump sum freight (götürü navlun) and partial loss: proportional reduction

Where freight is agreed as lump sum, the TCC logic supports a proportional approach: if part of the goods is lost, the party may claim a corresponding reduction of the lump sum freight. In practice, many “freight difference” disputes are in fact arguments about statutory reduction rather than pure pricing conflicts.

This is especially common in:

• partial cargo loss in containerized shipments,

• split delivery scenarios,

• mixed cargo where some packages are lost or destroyed.

C) “No delivery, yet freight claimed” disputes

Freight entitlement and delivery are tightly connected in maritime trade. When goods are not delivered (or delivery is refused, impossible, or prevented), parties frequently dispute whether the carrier has earned freight at all, whether freight is payable, or whether a refund is triggered. These cases are fact-sensitive and often hinge on whether the carrier’s non-delivery was caused by:

• cargo interests’ breach (e.g., failure to take delivery),

• a casualty/loss event,

• documentation failure (e.g., B/L presentation),

• port/authority intervention, or

• contractual exceptions and risk allocation.

3) What Is a “Freight Difference” (Navlun Farkı)? The 6 Most Common Scenarios

In practice, “freight difference” disputes often begin as “You billed too much.” But in reality, they are technical and document-driven. The most common scenarios are:

1) Weight/measurement disputes (W/M) and measurement method conflicts

Container, pallet, tonnage, cubic meter, and W/M-based pricing frequently triggers freight differences due to:

• inconsistent gross vs net weight declarations,

• packaging changes,

• different measurement methods (carrier vs shipper vs terminal),

• disputes over what constitutes chargeable volume.

Evidence that usually decides the outcome: weighbridge tickets, terminal measurements, packing lists, stowage/packing photos, and B/L clauses such as “said to contain/said to weigh” style reservations.

2) Conflict between “Freight Prepaid / Freight Collect” marking and the real payment arrangement

The B/L typically indicates whether freight is prepaid or payable at destination (“collect”). Disputes arise when:

• the B/L says prepaid but the carrier demands collect (or demands additional sums at destination),

• the B/L says collect but the carrier pressures for upfront payment,

• the invoice/payment chain does not match the B/L marking.

These are rarely “difference” disputes only; they become debtor identity and payment timing disputes.

3) Currency and FX disputes

Where freight is denominated in USD/EUR but collected in TRY (or vice versa), disputes arise about:

• applicable exchange rate date (invoice date, payment date, maturity date),

• whether currency was contractually fixed,

• whether a surcharge formula applies.

In litigation, these cases often depend on commercial books and records, bank receipts, and a consistent invoice trail.

4) Surcharge disputes (BAF/CAF, congestion, war risk, IMO, emergency fees, etc.)

In liner trades, freight is often priced as “base freight + surcharges.” If the contract fails to specify:

• which tariff schedule applies,

• which date triggers the surcharge,

• which route/port conditions justify the surcharge,
  then surcharges turn into a contested “freight difference,” often with major amounts.

5) Mixing freight with demurrage/detention/storage/terminal charges

Many claims labeled “freight” are actually:

• demurrage,

• detention,

• storage/warehouse (ardiye),

• terminal handling charges (THC).

These are legally and economically distinct. Bundling them into “freight difference” often weakens the claim and confuses the evidentiary path.

6) Charterparty freight vs B/L freight inconsistency

In charterparty contexts, the B/L may incorporate charterparty terms by reference. Disputes frequently arise over:

• which pricing clause controls,

• whether the incorporation is effective against third parties,

• whether forum/arbitration clauses conflict.

This is often where jurisdiction and arbitration battles start before the merits are even discussed.

4) The Five Most Critical Legal Controversies in Freight Disputes

(1) Who is the freight debtor: shipper, consignee, or another party?

This is the most common “hidden” issue—especially in freight collect patterns. Parties may argue:

• the shipper is the contractual debtor,

• the consignee is not a party and cannot be charged,

• the charterer (or another intermediary) promised payment.

Courts typically resolve this by reading the contract–B/L–invoice–delivery chain as a whole and testing who assumed the freight obligation commercially and legally.

(2) Has freight matured? (TCC Article 1197 timing)

Timing disputes often revolve around:

• whether delivery was requested,

• when discharge time ended,

• whether laytime/discharge time was contractually defined or implied.

Because the TCC sets the “latest maturity” at the end of discharge time, this becomes a key legal anchor in many claims.

(3) Does loss/damage trigger a refund or non-payment rule? (TCC Article 1199)

The strongest statutory refund/non-payment position is where goods are lost due to an accident until the end of the discharge period. The case then becomes evidence-heavy:

• when did the loss occur,

• what caused it,

• how is “accident” characterized,

• what documentation proves the timeline?

(4) Must the carrier deliver without payment?

Carriers face a practical dilemma:

• Delivering without payment increases collection risk.

• Refusing delivery can trigger allegations of wrongful withholding, commercial loss, and cascading liabilities.

This is why properly drafted payment and delivery clauses—aligned with B/L presentation rules—reduce conflict dramatically.

(5) Forum selection, jurisdiction, arbitration, and maritime expertise

Freight disputes often escalate into procedural war:

• Is the dispute in court or arbitration?

• Which country/city?

• Does the B/L clause govern or does the charterparty clause govern?

• Are third parties bound?

This procedural outcome can be more decisive than the freight calculation itself.

5) Contract Drafting and Evidence Strategy That Prevents Freight Litigation

Freight disputes can be litigated successfully—but the strongest results are achieved before the dispute arises, through disciplined contracting and documentation. The following measures reduce litigation risk significantly:

1. Define freight components clearly: base freight + surcharges + tariff reference + applicable date rule.

2. Fix the measurement method: W/M rules, agreed weighing location, authoritative measurement document, dispute resolution method.

3. Align prepaid/collect markings with reality: the B/L marking, invoice terms, and payment route must match.

4. Draft maturity and delivery logic consistent with TCC Article 1197: specify delivery request mechanism and discharge time definitions.

5. Map refund scenarios against TCC Article 1199: especially for casualty/loss patterns and lump sum freight structures.

6. Keep freight separate from demurrage/detention/storage: invoice items should reflect legal categories to avoid mislabeling.

7. Build an audit-proof document set: B/L, booking note, freight invoice, tariff notice (if used), packing list, weight certificates, terminal receipts, bank transfers, correspondence, and delivery records.

Conclusion: Freight “Arises” Under Performance, But It Becomes Payable Under Law at a Clear Moment

The question “When does a freight claim arise?” cannot be answered responsibly with a single sentence, because freight is part of a system that includes performance, delivery demand, discharge time, casualty/loss risk allocation, payment mode (prepaid vs collect), measurement method, and surcharge structure.

The practical legal summary is:

• Maturity is legally anchored: freight becomes due when delivery is requested and, in any case, at the end of the discharge period (TCC Article 1197).

• Freight refunds have a strong statutory core: where goods are lost due to an accident until the end of discharge time, freight is not payable and prepaid freight is refunded (TCC Article 1199).

• Freight difference disputes are rarely “just arithmetic”: they typically arise from measurement methodology, surcharges, currency rules, document inconsistency, and misclassification of charges.