Alternatively, some charter forms expressly apportion liability between the shipowner and charterer for safety of the place to which the vessel is directed. This may be an absolute obligation on the charterer or a lesser requirement that he exercises due diligence in choosing a safe place, as in Shellvoy 6, cl 4. A charterer sued under a warranty of safety cannot directly recover an indemnity from the port operator in English tort law. The economic loss is too remote. A shipowner may, however, assign his right of action to the charterer.

Ensuing disputes under a charterparty warranty of safety typically turn upon causation or some niche characteristic of a compliant nomination. However, the question of whether the owner or charterer is responsible for safety when a charterparty does not expressly apportion this liability remains notoriously lacking in authority. The issue is important to users of the most popular voyage charter form, the Gencon, which does not contain an express warranty. Parties often do not contemplate adding a term, or decline to haggle over a provision on which they may be unlikely to agree, preferring to leave it to chance that no incident occurs. If a loss arises, the shipowner must allege a term implied into the charterparty, that the charterer is responsible for safety of the place.