

Is a Turkish shipyard late delivering your newbuild vessel? Learn how foreign buyers can claim delay damages, liquidated damages, lost charter income, financing costs, terminate the shipbuilding contract and recover instalments.
A newbuild vessel delivery delay in Turkey can expose a foreign buyer to losses far exceeding the construction price dispute itself. A shipowner may have ordered a tanker, bulk carrier, tug, yacht, offshore vessel or specialized commercial ship from a Turkish shipyard years in advance, arranged financing, entered into a charterparty based on the contractual delivery date and planned an entire commercial operation around that date. If the shipyard subsequently announces that delivery will be delayed by three, six or twelve months, the buyer may face lost charter income, financing expenses, commitment fees, management costs, replacement-vessel expenses and potentially the loss of a highly profitable market opportunity.
The central legal question is not simply whether the contractual delivery date has passed. A newbuild dispute requires examination of the contractual delivery date, permissible delays, force majeure provisions, buyer-caused delays, change orders, liquidated damages, cancellation date, refund guarantees, construction milestones and dispute-resolution clause. Where Turkish law governs, the Turkish Code of Obligations can also become important. In particular, Article 473 provides a significant remedy where the contractor delays performance to such an extent that it becomes clear the work will not be completed at the agreed time for reasons not attributable to the customer.
For a foreign buyer, the practical objective is therefore to establish which days of delay are contractually permissible, which are attributable to the shipyard, when liquidated damages begin, when the buyer obtains a cancellation right and how payments can be recovered if the shipbuilding contract is terminated.
A vessel is a revenue-generating asset.
Every additional month spent unfinished at the shipyard can represent a month during which the buyer cannot trade the vessel.
For a commercially attractive newbuild, even a relatively short delay can therefore produce a substantial financial dispute.
The buyer may simultaneously be paying financing costs without receiving the income expected from the vessel.
The starting point is always the shipbuilding contract.
The buyer should identify the contractual delivery date and then examine every provision capable of modifying it.
A delivery date appearing on the first pages of the agreement may not represent an absolute deadline.
The contract may permit extensions for specified events.
Most sophisticated shipbuilding agreements identify a specific delivery date.
For example:
Contract Delivery Date: 15 March 2027.
That date becomes the starting point for calculating delay.
However, the buyer must then determine whether the builder is entitled to extend it.
Shipbuilding contracts frequently distinguish between permissible and non-permissible delays.
A delay may exist in the ordinary sense without yet giving the buyer a compensation or cancellation right.
This distinction is extremely important.
The builder may receive additional time for events expressly identified in the contract.
Depending on the agreement, these may include certain natural disasters, governmental restrictions, war, major industrial disruptions or other circumstances outside the builder’s control.
The precise wording controls.
A shipyard should not automatically obtain an extension merely because an unexpected event occurred.
Delay attributable to poor project management, inadequate manpower, ordinary subcontractor problems, procurement mistakes or defective construction may fall outside contractual extensions depending on the agreement.
These days can become relevant when calculating liquidated damages and cancellation rights.
Force majeure is frequently the most contested issue in delayed newbuild projects.
The builder may claim that an external event prevented timely construction.
The buyer should examine three questions:
Did the event fall within the contractual definition? Did it actually delay construction? Did the builder comply with the contractual notice requirements?
All three can matter.
The existence of an event does not necessarily justify every day of delay claimed by the yard.
Suppose an equipment supplier was affected for 20 days but the yard requests a 90-day extension.
The causal relationship between the event and the claimed extension should be investigated.
Shipbuilding contracts frequently require the builder to notify the buyer within a specified period.
The notice may need to describe the event, expected delay and mitigation measures.
Late or inadequate notice can become significant depending on the contractual wording.
Not every delay is the shipyard’s responsibility.
The buyer may delay approval of drawings, equipment selections or technical changes.
Buyer-supplied equipment may arrive late.
The buyer may also request substantial modifications after construction has begun.
These periods should be separated from yard-caused delay.
Newbuild projects evolve during construction.
The buyer may request additional accommodation, different machinery, upgraded navigation equipment or modifications to cargo systems.
Each change order should specify whether it affects the delivery date.
Otherwise, the parties may later disagree about how much additional time was actually authorized.
Technical teams frequently discuss modifications by email or messaging applications.
Months later, the shipyard may argue that these communications authorized both additional costs and a substantial delivery extension.
The buyer should therefore maintain a formal variation register.
The shipyard may blame the buyer for late technical approvals.
The buyer should reconstruct when each drawing was submitted, when comments were returned and whether the submission itself complied with contractual requirements.
A late buyer response does not necessarily justify unlimited extension.
Class approval can affect the construction schedule.
The contract should determine who bears responsibility for coordinating classification submissions.
If the yard submitted drawings late or incorrectly, it may have difficulty attributing the resulting delay entirely to the classification process.
The same principle applies to flag-state requirements.
The vessel must normally satisfy applicable statutory requirements before delivery.
A builder should not automatically be excused where approval problems resulted from its own incomplete or defective submissions.
Turkey’s new regulatory framework for vessel construction, alteration and maintenance entered into effect in 2026. Among other matters, it addresses construction procedures for foreign-flagged vessels and requires qualifying foreign-flagged vessels undergoing construction or alteration to be recorded and processed through the relevant system and, in specified circumstances, constructed under recognized or authorized classification arrangements. (LEXPERA)
Foreign buyers commissioning vessels in Turkey should therefore ensure that contractual project management also reflects applicable regulatory and classification requirements.
Main engines, generators, propulsion systems and specialist equipment frequently have long lead times.
The builder may argue that supplier delays justify late delivery.
That defense should be tested against the contract.
Ordinary procurement difficulties are not necessarily equivalent to contractually recognized force majeure.
Suppose the engine manufacturer delivers the main engine four months late.
The question is not simply whether the engine was late.
The buyer should determine who selected the manufacturer, who contracted with it, whether the risk was foreseeable and what the shipbuilding contract says about subcontractor and supplier delays.
A particularly dangerous situation arises where construction slows because the yard experiences financial distress.
Workers may leave, subcontractors may remain unpaid and suppliers may stop delivering equipment.
The buyer should treat unexplained reductions in construction activity as a potential warning sign.
Newbuild prices are commonly paid in instalments linked to construction milestones.
Payments may become due upon contract signing, steel cutting, keel laying, launching and delivery.
The buyer should ensure that milestone certificates accurately reflect actual construction progress.
Where serious delay develops, the buyer should review whether future instalments are genuinely due before making them.
The contract may contain specific payment obligations despite delay.
Improperly withholding payment can place the buyer itself in breach.
The payment strategy should therefore be legally reviewed rather than improvised.
For foreign buyers, the refund guarantee can be one of the most important documents in the entire transaction.
If the buyer lawfully cancels the shipbuilding contract, substantial advance instalments may need to be recovered.
The commercial value of a cancellation right is limited if the yard cannot repay the money.
The buyer should identify:
the guarantor, guaranteed amount, expiry date, extension mechanism, demand requirements and circumstances triggering payment.
The guarantee should not be reviewed for the first time after the yard becomes insolvent.
This is a major risk.
Suppose delivery is delayed by eight months but the refund guarantee expires under the original construction timetable.
The buyer could lose crucial financial protection while the project remains unfinished.
Any required extension should therefore be addressed before expiry.
Shipbuilding contracts commonly provide predetermined compensation for delay.
The amount may be calculated per day.
For example, the agreement might provide that the vessel price is reduced by an agreed amount for every day of non-permissible delay after a grace period.
The actual contractual formula controls.
Liquidated damages frequently do not begin on the first day after the original delivery date.
The contract may allow a specified grace period.
Foreign buyers should therefore calculate compensation according to the actual clause rather than simply multiplying every delayed day by a daily figure.
Some agreements use escalating compensation.
The daily amount may increase as the delay becomes longer.
This creates additional pressure on the builder to complete the vessel before the cancellation threshold is reached.
The contract may cap delay damages.
Once the cap is reached, the buyer may need to decide whether to continue waiting or exercise a cancellation right if available.
The economic consequences should be calculated carefully.
This depends heavily on the contract and applicable law.
A liquidated damages clause may be intended as the buyer’s exclusive financial remedy for ordinary delay.
Alternatively, other losses may remain recoverable in specified circumstances.
The exact wording must therefore be examined before claiming lost charter income, financing expenses and liquidated damages simultaneously.
Where Turkish law governs the agreement, contractual penalty provisions should also be considered under the Turkish Code of Obligations.
Turkish contract law recognizes agreed penalty mechanisms but also contains rules governing their operation.
The commercial label used by the parties is not always the end of the legal analysis.
A foreign buyer may have fixed the newbuild under a charterparty commencing shortly after scheduled delivery.
If the shipyard is late, the buyer may lose the charter.
This can produce a substantial claim if the applicable contract permits recovery beyond agreed delay damages.
The buyer should preserve:
Charterparty → Fixture Recap → Hire Rate → Commencement Date → Cancellation Clause → Charterer’s Cancellation Notice → Broker Correspondence → Replacement Fixture → Market Rate Evidence.
The stronger the documentary chain, the stronger the damages analysis.
A buyer may not yet have signed a full charterparty but may have been negotiating a commercially valuable fixture.
Claims based on incomplete negotiations are more difficult because they can become speculative.
Contemporaneous broker correspondence can nevertheless be important evidence.
A buyer may charter another vessel to satisfy its commercial obligations while waiting for the newbuild.
The additional cost of the substitute vessel may become relevant to the damages analysis where legally recoverable.
The buyer should demonstrate why replacement tonnage was commercially reasonable.
Delayed delivery can increase financing expenses.
Commitment fees may continue while delivery financing remains undrawn.
Interest arrangements may change.
Hedging costs can also arise.
Whether these losses are recoverable depends on causation, foreseeability and contractual limitations.
Foreign buyers commonly maintain a site supervision team at the Turkish yard.
Extended construction means additional accommodation, salaries, travel and technical supervision expenses.
These additional costs should be documented separately.
Construction delays can also affect insurance arrangements.
Builder’s risk and buyer-related policies may require extension.
Any additional premiums caused directly by the delay should be documented.
A prolonged project consumes technical and management resources.
However, generalized internal management costs can be more difficult to recover than specific additional expenditures.
The buyer should therefore keep detailed records.
A newbuild ordered during a strong freight market may arrive after rates have collapsed.
The buyer may argue that delayed delivery deprived it of exceptionally profitable trading months.
Such claims can be economically significant but legally complex.
The contract’s damages exclusions become particularly important.
Shipbuilding contracts frequently exclude indirect or consequential losses.
The builder may rely on such a clause against claims for lost profits or lost charter income.
The buyer should analyze the exact wording and governing law before calculating its claim.
Some contracts provide that agreed delay damages constitute the buyer’s exclusive remedy until the cancellation threshold is reached.
If such a clause applies, the buyer’s compensation options may be substantially narrower.
This is why the shipbuilding contract must be analyzed before the buyer sends a broad damages demand.
Even where an excusable event occurs, the builder may have obligations to reduce its consequences.
The buyer should request an updated recovery schedule.
Additional shifts, alternative suppliers and revised sequencing may be relevant.
Once material delay becomes apparent, the buyer should require a realistic project schedule.
It should identify outstanding construction, equipment delivery, commissioning, harbour trials, sea trials, class approval and expected delivery.
Repeatedly changing delivery forecasts should be documented.
Monthly progress reports are extremely important.
The buyer should preserve photographs, milestone reports, superintendent reports and construction percentages.
These can later establish when it became clear that contractual delivery was impossible.
Where Turkish law applies, Article 473 can become particularly important.
It provides that where the contractor fails to commence work on time, delays performance contrary to the agreement, or delay not attributable to the customer makes it clearly apparent that completion by the agreed date will not occur, the customer can, subject to the provision’s conditions, withdraw without waiting for the contractual delivery date.
For a severely delayed newbuild, this can be significant even before the nominal delivery date arrives.
The buyer should pay close attention when:
construction milestones are repeatedly missed, workforce numbers fall dramatically, major suppliers remain unpaid, essential equipment has not been ordered, the shipyard refuses updated schedules or the projected completion date moves repeatedly without a credible explanation.
These signs can justify immediate legal review.
Shipbuilding contracts commonly establish a long-stop or cancellation date.
This is different from the original contractual delivery date.
The builder may incur liquidated damages after the contractual delivery date while the buyer obtains the right to cancel only after a later threshold.
A simplified contract might operate as follows:
Original Delivery Date → Permissible Extensions → Grace Period → Liquidated Damages Period → Maximum Delay → Cancellation Date.
Every shipbuilding agreement can structure these stages differently.
Cancelling a newbuild contract should not be treated as an automatic response to delay.
The buyer must consider the vessel’s construction percentage, market value, current freight market, replacement cost, refund guarantee and financial position of the yard.
Sometimes waiting is economically preferable.
Sometimes cancellation is essential.
Suppose the buyer ordered the vessel for USD 40 million.
By the cancellation date, comparable newbuild prices have increased to USD 55 million.
Cancelling may return the buyer’s instalments but leave it unable to obtain a replacement vessel at the original price.
The economic decision therefore extends beyond delay damages.
The opposite situation can occur.
If the vessel’s market value has fallen significantly, cancellation may be commercially attractive once the contractual right arises.
This can create intense disputes about whether the delay genuinely reached the cancellation threshold.
The shipyard may argue that the buyer cancelled prematurely.
It may claim additional permissible delay days or buyer-caused extensions.
If the buyer’s cancellation is invalid, the buyer itself may face serious contractual consequences.
The delay calculation should therefore be audited before termination.
A professional delay analysis should divide the project into categories:
Contractual Delivery Date → Excusable Delay → Non-Excusable Delay → Buyer Delay → Approved Extensions → Disputed Extensions → Liquidated Damages Days → Cancellation Threshold.
This should be supported by documents for each period.
The contract may require a specific cancellation notice.
The buyer should comply precisely with notice addresses, delivery method and timing requirements.
A multimillion-dollar termination should not depend on an informal email sent to the wrong project manager.
After valid cancellation, the buyer may seek repayment of construction instalments according to the contract.
Interest may also be addressed.
If the builder does not voluntarily refund the amounts, the refund guarantee becomes particularly important.
The guarantee must be read independently from the shipbuilding contract.
A demand may require particular wording, documents or certifications.
Failure to comply with formal demand conditions can create unnecessary disputes with the guarantor.
Delay combined with financial distress is particularly dangerous.
The buyer may have paid millions of dollars into a partially constructed vessel while legal title to materials and the vessel under construction raises complex issues.
Immediate analysis of the contract, refund guarantee and ownership arrangements becomes critical.
Shipbuilding contracts can allocate title to the vessel and construction materials in different ways.
The buyer should determine whether title passes progressively, remains with the builder until delivery or is addressed through another contractual structure.
This becomes particularly important if the yard enters insolvency.
The buyer may have supplied navigation systems, machinery or other equipment.
Ownership of buyer-supplied items should be clearly documented.
Serial numbers and delivery records should be preserved.
Financing documents may contain deadlines tied to delivery.
A serious shipyard delay can therefore trigger issues under the loan agreement even before the shipbuilding contract is cancelled.
The financing bank should be involved where appropriate.
Refund guarantees and shipbuilding-contract rights may have been assigned to the financing institution.
Before sending termination or guarantee demands, the buyer should determine whether lender consent or involvement is required.
The vessel may appear structurally complete but remain unable to begin sea trials.
This can signal significant commissioning problems.
The buyer should not treat launching as equivalent to readiness for delivery.
A vessel may fail speed, fuel consumption, deadweight, noise, vibration or other contractual performance tests.
This creates a different but related dispute.
The contract may provide price reductions, rectification rights or rejection rights for specified deficiencies.
If the vessel cannot be delivered because defective construction must be corrected, the resulting period should be analyzed carefully.
The builder should not automatically obtain an extension merely because its own defective work requires additional time.
Physical completion alone does not necessarily constitute contractual readiness for delivery.
Required class certificates, statutory documents, testing and agreed technical conditions may also need to be satisfied.
A premature notice of readiness should therefore be reviewed carefully.
The opposite risk also exists.
If the vessel satisfies contractual delivery requirements and the buyer refuses acceptance without proper grounds, the buyer may itself become responsible for delay or breach.
Independent technical advice is therefore essential when rejecting delivery.
Minor defects may not always justify refusal.
Shipbuilding contracts commonly use punch lists or guarantee arrangements for outstanding minor items.
The buyer should distinguish genuine non-deliverability from defects that can properly be addressed after delivery.
International shipbuilding contracts frequently contain arbitration clauses.
The dispute may therefore ultimately be decided outside Turkish courts even though the vessel is being built in Turkey.
The buyer should identify the arbitration seat, applicable rules and governing law immediately.
The existence of arbitration does not mean every issue connected with assets or evidence in Turkey can be ignored.
Urgent provisional measures may require separate consideration under applicable procedural rules.
The interaction between arbitration and Turkish court relief should therefore be analyzed early.
If the dispute appears likely to escalate, the buyer should preserve the entire project record.
This includes specifications, plans, change orders, payment certificates, schedules, superintendent reports, class correspondence, photographs, meeting minutes and delay notices.
Weekly construction meetings can become decisive evidence.
The minutes may show that the builder repeatedly acknowledged a particular delay.
The buyer should object promptly if minutes inaccurately attribute delay to the buyer.
Silence can create evidentiary difficulties later.
The site superintendent often possesses the most detailed factual knowledge of the project.
Daily reports should be preserved systematically.
They can establish manpower levels, incomplete areas, supplier problems and progress.
The buyer should obtain the shipyard’s revised delivery schedule and written explanation for the delay.
The contractual delivery date, cancellation date, liquidated damages clause and permissible-delay provisions should be identified immediately.
The buyer should avoid accepting a revised delivery date casually.
A delay chronology should be prepared.
Each extension claimed by the builder should be connected with a contractual provision and supporting evidence.
The buyer should also review refund guarantees, financing documents and charter commitments.
The buyer should quantify its potential losses and determine its commercial objective.
Does it still want the vessel?
Would it accept delayed delivery with compensation?
Is cancellation commercially preferable?
Is the refund guarantee secure?
These questions determine the legal strategy.
A foreign buyer orders a bulk carrier from a Turkish shipyard.
The contractual delivery date is 1 September.
The yard announces delivery on 1 December.
The buyer should not immediately calculate 91 days of compensation.
First, all permissible extensions, buyer delays and contractual grace periods must be deducted or analyzed according to the agreement.
Only then can compensable delay be calculated.
A tanker was scheduled for delivery on 1 March and had a profitable three-year charter beginning 15 March.
The yard delivers five months late and the charterer cancels.
The buyer should preserve the charterparty, cancellation notice and broker correspondence.
Whether the lost charter income can be recovered beyond contractual delay damages will depend heavily on the shipbuilding contract and governing law.
The shipyard is eight months behind schedule.
The buyer has paid USD 20 million in instalments.
The refund guarantee expires in 30 days.
The buyer should treat the guarantee expiry as an immediate financial-risk issue rather than waiting to see whether construction improves.
The builder claims a 120-day extension because a major component supplier suffered a production interruption.
The buyer should investigate how long the interruption actually affected the critical construction path, whether alternative procurement was possible and whether contractual notice was given.
A supplier problem does not automatically prove entitlement to every day claimed.
Progress is so poor that everyone involved knows the vessel cannot possibly be completed by the contractual date.
Where Turkish law governs, the contract and Article 473 of the Turkish Code of Obligations should be examined to determine whether early withdrawal may be available in the particular circumstances. Article 473 specifically addresses situations where it becomes clear that timely completion will not occur because of delay not attributable to the customer.
A foreign buyer dealing with a delayed Turkish newbuild should treat the dispute as a contractual deadline, financial security and damages-management problem. The first task is to establish the original delivery date and reconstruct every extension claimed by the builder. Permissible delays must be separated from non-permissible delays and buyer-caused delays. Force majeure notices should be checked against the contractual definition, notice procedure and actual effect on the critical construction schedule. Every variation order should be reviewed to determine whether the buyer actually agreed to extend delivery. The buyer should then calculate the commencement and maximum amount of liquidated damages and identify the exact cancellation date. At the same time, the refund guarantee must be reviewed for amount, expiry and demand requirements. If Turkish law governs and construction has fallen so far behind that timely completion has clearly become impossible, the potential relevance of Article 473 should be assessed.
The practical roadmap is therefore: secure the shipbuilding contract → confirm the contractual delivery date → identify permissible delays → audit force majeure claims → calculate buyer-caused delay → review variation orders → reconstruct the critical delay chronology → obtain updated construction schedules → preserve superintendent reports → document missed milestones → review liquidated damages → calculate compensable delay → identify the cancellation date → review refund guarantees → extend guarantees where necessary → review financing obligations → preserve charterparty evidence → calculate lost charter income → document additional supervision and financing costs → assess contractual exclusions → evaluate whether the buyer still wants the vessel → prepare cancellation strategy if necessary → serve notices strictly according to the contract → protect refund rights → commence arbitration or litigation under the agreed dispute mechanism → pursue contractual compensation and recovery of amounts legally due.
Potentially, yes. The buyer’s rights depend primarily on the shipbuilding contract, the cause of delay, permissible extensions, liquidated damages provisions and governing law.
Not necessarily. The contract may contain permissible delays, grace periods or other extensions that affect when delay damages begin.
Potentially, if the event falls within the contractual provision and the other requirements are satisfied. The buyer should examine causation, duration, notice and mitigation rather than automatically accepting the extension.
Potentially, but the contract may limit recovery through liquidated damages, exclusive-remedy clauses or consequential-loss exclusions. The existence and loss of the charter should also be proved with contemporaneous documents.
Potentially. Many shipbuilding contracts provide a cancellation threshold or long-stop date. Where Turkish law governs, statutory remedies concerning serious contractor delay may also become relevant.
In exceptional circumstances this may potentially be possible. Under Article 473 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, where the applicable requirements are satisfied and it has become clear because of contractor delay not attributable to the customer that the work cannot be completed on time, withdrawal may be possible without waiting for the agreed delivery date.
The shipbuilding contract will normally regulate repayment consequences. Refund guarantees can be critically important if the shipyard does not voluntarily return amounts due.
This should be treated urgently. A buyer should not allow substantial advance payments to become unsecured merely because the delivery timetable has moved. The guarantee terms and extension requirements should be reviewed before expiry.
Potentially, where contractual delivery conditions have not been satisfied. However, minor punch-list defects may not necessarily justify rejection. The technical specification and delivery provisions should be examined carefully.
The shipbuilding contract, construction schedule, variation orders, force majeure notices, milestone records, superintendent reports, class correspondence, payment records, refund guarantees, charter documents and contemporaneous communications concerning delay are particularly important.
Foreign shipowners, investors, shipping companies and vessel buyers facing newbuild delivery delays, shipyard default, disputed extensions, liquidated damages, lost charter income, refund guarantee issues, cancellation rights or shipbuilding contract disputes in Turkey should evaluate their position before accepting repeated delivery extensions or allowing financial security to expire.
Firat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign buyers and international shipping companies in shipbuilding and newbuild disputes involving Turkey. Firat Fesih Kaya can assist with analyzing delivery-delay provisions, reviewing force majeure and extension claims, calculating contractual compensation, protecting refund rights and pursuing cancellation, arbitration or litigation where necessary.
Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile Phone: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No: 221, Yildirim Tower, Balgat, Cankaya / Ankara, Turkey