台风与不可抗力免责的探讨
日期:2018-08-04 阅读:2560
  【摘要】在台风季节,南方港口频繁受到台风影响,比如近期的第10号台风“安比”,导致众多港口封港,在港船舶需要移到海上抗台,从而造成巨大损失。那么这些损失该由谁来承担呢?那么这些台风是否可以算是不可抗力?当事人是否可以免责?频繁的台风是否能构成一个港口的基本属性,从而构成港口不安全?本文通过一些案例来说明这一问题。

  【关键词】Force Majeure、安全港口、台风、不可抗力

  每年的台风季节,都给我们沿海港口城市带来巨大的影响;港口受到台风影响,势必影响装卸货作业。比如近期的第10号台风“安比”,导致浙江,上海,长江内港口,甚至影响到岚山,日照等,这些港口封港的封港,有的甚至还要求码头离开泊位到锚地去抗台。以岚山港为例,受台风“安比”影响,港方要求码头船舶移到锚地抗台。且不论移泊时间损失,好望角型船的移泊的费用,拖轮加引水费接近17万人民币,金额巨大。那么这些损失该由谁来承担呢?

  先从实务中船舶遭遇第10号台风“安比”的情况说起。H轮装铁矿,租家安排到马迹山卸。在租家宣了马迹山为卸港之后,根据中央气象台对第10号台风“安比”的路径图,如下,可以看出马迹山港将正面受到此台风的影响。
  


  于是在7月19日,给租家发了第一封提醒电邮:

  Assume you noted already that Zhou shan/ CJK range will be affected by Typhoon o/a 22/Jul. Majishan was located in those area and will be unsafe for the vessel this voyage.

  For safety, Charterers are called upon to nominate other ports. But if the charterers no willing to nominate other safe port for the vessel,Charterers please confirm all additional costs/expenses/damages/time lost etc which result from to anti-Typhoon which will be for charterers’ sole account and the time will to count as laytime continuously.

  Thanks for charterers’ attention and kind consideration.

  租家并没有理会此电邮,没有改港的意图。H轮只能按租家原始要求到马迹山,该轮19日晚上抵达锚地后递交NOR, 20日早上按租家代理指示,起锚北上避台。台风“安比”登陆之后,H轮于24日早上回到马迹山等泊锚地。

  23日,继续发了如下电邮给租家,要求给予确认。

  Assume the charterers well awared that Majishan was affected by Typhoon Ampil during last weekend.

  And now Majishan may be affected by No.1813 very soon.

  There is potential high risks for the vessel, have to shift to anchorage or other place for shelter for avoid damage due to the port of Majishan may affect by typhoon, Typhoon was not abnormal occurrence.

  As the charterers note that there are additional costs, such aspilotage, towage, bunker consumption, time lost etc will occur for shifting. In present case, no pilotage or towage occurred, but time lost and bunker consumption already occurred.

  The captioned vessel have to shift for shelter, then Majishan portwas not free of risks, expenses to Owners, the charterers therefore put them in breach.

  Accordingly, the shifting cost &expense /time lost etc whichwas caused by the unsafety of the port, should be for charterers’ sole account.

  Hope the charterers could fully understand this and they are willing to accept the same.

  但租家依然保持沉默;接着又发了如下电邮给租家。

  Further to Owners’ last messages, As charterers are well aware that The port must be physically safe in its location, size and layout for the particular ship to use at the relevant time, having regard to both its natural and artificial aspects. The fact that it is safe to enter is not enough if the port may become unsafe for the ship to remain at. For this please refer to Time CharterChapter 10-Safe Ports and Berths, 10.28. and Voyage CharterChapter 5-Loading and Discharging Ports, Places and Berths, 5.58: Which was cited Lord Justice Sellers said in the leading case The “Eastern City”, where he stated:

  A port will not be safe unless,in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.

  Basis above authorities,Majishan port is unsafe for particular vessel-H of particular voyage-V30, fort his time calling.

  Pursuant to《Time Charter》Chapter 10-Safe Ports and Berths, 10.51: Port becomes unsafe after nomination;charterers’ secondary obligation

  Similarly, if a subsequentstate of unsafety arises when the ship is at the port, but while she may stillavoid the danger by leaving, the charterers come under a new obligation toorder the ship to leave, if they wish to continue to trade the ship, to issuefresh orders to another port which is then prospectively safe.

  Owners have duly informed and keep Charterers updated status of Typhoon, But the charterers decide to ignore Owners’ kind reminders. Owners/Master have no choice but to follow charterers’ order to call Majishan for discharging. The Master follow charterers their agent’s instruction as attached, commence shifting on 21st/Jul at0530hrs northern for shelter and back on 24th/Jul at 0306hrs, and during those period for anti-Typhoon, consume bunker 113.7mts, total time lost 69H36M.

  For the details charterers please refer to attached-MV H V30 FINAL REPORT.

  The Master and his crews had all reasonable precautions to avoid and mitigate the effects of Typhoon, The costs for shifting which are recoverable. For this charterers please refer to 《Time Charter》Chapter 10-Safe Ports and Berths. 10.63,which provides:

  If the owners or their master do take reasonable action to avoid or mitigate the effects of any unsafety ofthe port, they may claim from the charterers the cost of so doing: for example,the cost of tugs in Brostrom v. Dreyfus(1932) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 136,and the cost of lightening in Hall v. Paul (1914) 19 Com.Cas. 384 and paragraph 10.24, above.

  For all reason given above, The charterers please confirm the cost for shifting will be for their account.

  Owners are looking forward toreceiving charterers’ positive confirmation by return.

  之后第12号台风“云雀”即将在8月3日左右正面影响马迹山,如下图,WNI所提供的轨迹图所示。
  

  目前科技发达,台风等极端天气可以很早地预报并且准确性相当高。对于从事航运业的人员而言,都可以轻而易举地获得这些气象报告;或者说,这些信息必然为人所知。

  H轮的合同中对于卸港,作了如下的规定。

  Upon completion of loading, the vessel shall proceed to one safe berth each of oneor two safe port(s), as set forth in this Contract, always be safely afloat,free of risks, expenses to Owners.

  参之前《再轮港口安全问题》一文,依据此条,不管是按早期的判例还是按随后的判例,租家都得都得为马迹山港的港口安全负责。

  为方便理解,有必要再来了解一下安全港口的权威定义。对于“安全港口”的权威定义,可以见Sellers勋爵在上诉法院判例,Leeds Shipping V Scoiete Francaise Bunge (The “Eastern City”) [1958] 2Lloyd’s Rep 127 案中,在第131页判决书中所作的权威表述:

  A port will not be safe unless, in the relevant period of time, the particular ship can reach it, use it and return from it without, in the absence of some abnormal occurrence, being exposed to danger which cannot be avoided by good navigation and seamanship.

  即,如果没有异常情况发生,虽然有良好的船舶驾驶技术仍不能安全地驶入、挂靠及离开一个港口,则这个港口是不安全的。

  另根据贵族院判例,The “Evia No. 2 ”[1983] 1 AC 736案,Roskill勋爵认为:

  Charterers does not assume responsibility for unexpected or abnormal events which occur suddenly and which create conditions of un-safety after he has given order to proceed to the relevant port.

  即,租船人对指定港口后的突发事件或异常情况不承担不安全港口的责任。

  也可参劳氏法律报告,The “Evia No. 2 ” [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.307作了如下评述。

  -Held, by H.L. (Lord Diplock, Lord Elwyn-Jones, Lord Keithof Kinkel, Lord RoskillandLord Brandon of Oakbrook), that(1) a charterer would exercise his undoubted contractual right under the charter by giving the owner orders to go to a particular port or place of loading or discharging and it was at that point of time, when the order was given, that the contractual promise by the charterers regarding the safety ofthe intended port had to be fulfilled; but this did not mean that a port or place had to be safe when the order was given; the charterer's contractual promise related to the characteristics of the port or place in question and meant that when the order was given that port or place was prospectively safe for the vessel to get to, stay at so far as necessary, and in due course, leave and if in spite of them, some unexpected and abnormal event occurred which created conditions of unsafety so that the vessel was damaged or delayed, that contractual promise did not extend to make the charterer liable for any resulting loss or damage,physical or financial (see p.310, cols. 1 and 2; p. 315, col. 2; p. 316, col. 1);

  从1958年The “Eastern City”判例至今,航运圈一致认为,如果在租船合同中,列明了港口安全,那么承租人对安全港口的保证是绝对义务;如果不想承担,只有两个抗辩理由,一是“异常情况”,二是“涉事船船长的航行过失”。

  对于怎么判断一个现象是否是“异常情况”,在The“Ocean Victory” [2015] EWCA Civ 16案中,上诉法院采取的判断标准是:“该现象是否实际以足够高的频率出现,以致可将其视为港口的一个特性”。换句话说,要综合考虑过去该现象出现的规律和频率证据,还要仔细评估其再次发生的可能性有多大。当然,The“Ocean Victory”案,最高法院已经作出了判决,所发生的可以归为异常情况,因此不构成港口不安全;承租人抗辩成功。

  那么回到H轮中来,因为受到台风影响,H轮不能安全地在马迹山锚地呆着。依据Roskill勋爵在The “Evia No. 2 ” [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.307案中,在第315页判决书中的如下陈词:

  The charterer's contractual promise must, I think, relate to the characteristics of the port or place in question, and in my view, means that when the order is given that port or place is prospectively safe for the ship to get to, stay at, so far as necessary, andin due course, leave.

  很明显,租家在指定港口的时候,光保证船舶能到达还不够,还必须保证船舶能安全地呆着和离开。因此对于特定的船舶H轮,在这个特定的航次而言,马迹山港不属于安全港口,船舶不能安全地呆在港口,必须离港抗台,租家违约。

  在气象预报有台风,船东没有拒绝前往马迹山,此行为是否构成了弃权呢?很显然,情况并不是这样。在抵港前,船东已经发了邮件提醒租家马迹山港口不安全,将受到台风影响,并且将保留索赔的权利;但租家选择保持沉默。这种关于索赔的情况,可以参贵族院判例,The “Kanchenunga” [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.391案,Goff of Chieveley 勋爵在第397页判决书中说道,

  Accordingly if the owners, notwithstanding their right to reject the nomination, complied with it and their ship suffered loss or damage in consequence, they would be entitled to recover damages from the charterers for breach of contract, though the ordinary principles of remoteness of damage and causation would apply to any such claim:see Compania Naviera Maropan S/A v.Bowaters Lloyd Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. (The Stork), [1955] 1 Lloyd'sRep. 349; [1955] 2 Q.B. 68, and ReardonSmith Line Ltd. v. Australian Wheat Board (The Houston City), [1956] 1Lloyd's Rep. 1; [1956] A.C. 266.

  船东没有拒绝租家要求,只是船东放弃了可以不去租家指定港口的权利,并没有放弃索赔由于不安全港口带来损失的权利。因此根据贵族院判例,船东将有权索赔由于港口不安全所带来的损失,包括时间及燃油消耗。H轮案中的时间和燃油消耗损失,和遥远性无关,是任何一个合理人士可预料得到的,因此不再作讨论。

  那么接下来,来看看台风是否是异常情况。马迹山在不到一个月的时间内接连受到第10号,第12号,第13号台风影响;而且1810号台风“安比”轨迹,强度都中规中矩。因此,马迹山在台风季节受到台风影响并非异常情况。如果在12月份还受到台风影响,这种情况下才可能被认为是异常情况。

  再来看看之前上海地区受到的台风影响情况,如下图:
  


  从上图表可以看出,时间上影响上海的台风主要是集中在7,8,9三个月。这也是西北太平洋多发季节,而上海地区也处在台风的典型路径之一③上。
  

  从网络上,可以查到如下上海地区受到台风影响的历史记录:

  1949年7月24日晚9时至翌日凌晨4时,4906号台风正面袭击申城,狂风大作,骤雨倾盆,全市因灾死亡1613人,208.3万亩农田受淹,63208间房屋倒塌,经济损失10亿元人民币(旧币)以上。

  1954年8月19日5411号台风于北纬13.7度,东经145.4度生成,并在1954年8月25日登陆上海,在该台风生命期间,其最大风速25米/秒,最低气压994百帕。

  1959年7月8日,台风“毕莉”在上海登陆。

  1977年的8号台风于当年9月登陆上海崇明。在1977年9月10日和11日,台风东西向穿行崇明岛而后越太湖至安徽消亡,伴有暴雨、局部大暴雨。上海农田受灾300余万亩,市区倒断行道树近万棵。

  1989年13号台风,于当年8月3日至5日登陆上海川沙,暴雨高潮同时袭击,郊区农田积水数万亩,倒损房屋、棚舍300余间,吹倒树木数百棵,部分海塘圩堤损坏,黄浦江上29条轮渡全线停驶。

  2005年的“麦莎”是近年对上海影响最严重的一次。市区最大风力8-10级,长江口区和沿江沿海最大风力达10-12级,市区普降暴雨和大暴雨。

  2007年“韦帕”与上海擦肩而过,上海撤离近30万人,影响上海期间共有128条段马路积水,8000余户民居进水,直接经济损失100万元。

  2008年受强热带风暴“森拉克”影响,上海郊区普降中到大雨,局部地区出现暴雨到大暴雨,最高雨量达到100毫米以上。由于短时雨量集中,又恰值涨潮,崇明、青浦等郊区部分城镇道路积水,崇明岛上部分民居进水。

  2012年台风“海葵”致上海风雨强劲,市区普遍出现6-8级、阵风9级的东北大风, 全市普降暴雨到大暴雨。虹口港、彭越 浦、桃浦河等河道水位普遍超过警戒线。由于雨量过于集中,加之沿线排水泵站因内河水位超警、外河遭遇涨潮而被迫关泵,加剧了沿线虹口、闸北、普陀等地的道路积水。

  2013年台风 “菲特”于9月30日20时在菲律宾以东洋面上生成,受“菲特”影响,罕见的红色大暴雨导致道路严重积水,防汛部门发布防汛防台红色预警,启动一级响应。

  2014年台风“凤凰”在上海奉贤区海湾镇沿海登陆,登陆时中心附近最大风力有9级。“凤凰”的此次登陆,是1949年至2014年第6个登陆上海的台风。

  这些仅仅是正面袭击上海地区的台风情况。另外据气象专家解释,台风常常和上海“擦肩而过”,是因为和浙江、福建长长的海岸线相比,上海只是一个“点”,从概率上来说,这个“点”被台风“投中”的几率很小。此外,上海是平原地形,不利于台风气流的抬升。但即使不是在上海正面登陆,也有可能造成不小的影响。

  基于以上所给出的事实,上海马迹山港口受到台风影响不是异常情况,尤其是在台风季节。在台风季节容易受到台风影响,构成了马迹山港的一个特性。因此租家得赔偿H轮本航次受到底10号台风“安比”影响所造成的损失,时间损失及抗台期间的燃油消耗。

  之前文章多次说到,合约应该当一个整体来解读。因此租约中的港口安全的保证,和不可抗力条款之间,并没有冲突。虽然在不可抗力条款下,租家可以免责;但是同时也违反了租约中列明的安全港口保证,租家还是得赔偿船东损失。

  那么台风到底是否能算是不可抗力吗?首先来看看几个国内法院关于台风是否属于不可抗力的判例。

  一、(2015)桂民四终字第17号

  在该案中,一审法院认为,本案系海上养殖损害责任纠纷。综合诉辩双方的观点,本案的争议焦点为:一、广西港航公司的船舶是否触碰了赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明的蚝排;二、广西港航公司船舶触碰蚝排事故是否为不可抗力原因引起;三、涉案事故的责任应如何划分;四、赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明是否非法养殖及损失的范围数额如何确定。

  关于广西港航公司船舶触碰蚝排事故是否为不可抗力原因引起的问题,一审法院认为,根据《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百五十三条规定:“本法所称的‘不可抗力’,是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况”,构成不可抗力需同时满足“不能预见”、“不能避免”、“不能克服”三个条件。本案中,台风来临之前国家气象局及钦州气象局已经对“威马逊”台风登陆发布了预告,且根据钦州海事局对当事人和肇事船舶船员所作的询问笔录表明,台风来临之前,广西港航公司已知悉并向值班船员发送了台风来临的预警讯息,船员亦可通过网络得知台风来临时间、强度等信息,从而做出相应的防台预案,可见涉案事故中“威马逊”台风并非不可预见的风险;其次,涉案事故发生时,肇事船舶停靠在钦州市龙港船舶修造有限公司,钦州市龙门港渔监站出具的证明显示,该码头不具备避风港条件,台风前广西港航公司仅向值班船员发送台风信息,未指示将船舶移至安全避风港口或派人到现场指导和检查船舶防台情况,船上人员也没有采取与风力相应的加强措施。因此,虽然涉案事故中台风的强度和等级超出船舶正常的抗风能力,但并非不可预见和完全不能避免与克服,广西港航公司在预先能够得知台风讯息的前提下,有时间和能力对台风作出更好的预案并采取适当的加固措施,从而减轻甚至可能避免涉案事故的发生。因此,广西港航公司认为涉案事故系因不可抗力造成的抗辩,不予采信。

  关于涉案事故的责任应如何划分的问题,一审法院认为,涉案事故的发生系由三方面原因力所致。理由:首先,2014年台风“威马逊”登陆华南沿海,是1973年以来登陆华南的最强台风,台风对广西钦州、北海、防城港等沿海城市的大蚝养殖业造成的打击巨大,从赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明提供的现场照片、视频及海事局调取的现场照片看,其养殖区范围附近海域的大量蚝排在台风过后已所剩无几。涉案事故发生时,风向由北转南,风力15级,风速46.4米/秒,且随着台风中心的移动,风圈范围、风向不断变化,虽然涉案船舶所做的防台措施不足,但台风的强度已超出涉案船舶的正常抗风能力和抗风等级。发生断缆事故后,因涉案船舶本身无动力,船员已无法采取措施控制船舶,船舶只能随风向和水流方向在海上漂移,广西港航公司在断缆事故发生后显然不存在过错,结合海事局在《事故调查结论书》中亦认定台风“威马逊”是导致事故发生的直接原因和主要原因,此次台风虽然不构成不可抗力,但该台风超出船舶正常抗风能力和抗风等级,破坏力巨大,在涉案事故中起主要作用;其次,《中华人民共和国海上航行警告和航行通告管理规定》第五条规定:“在中华人民共和国沿海水域从事下列活动,必须事先向所涉及的海域的区域主管机关申请发布海上航行警告、航行通告:(二)划定、改动或者撤销禁航区、抛泥区、水产养殖区、测速区、水上娱乐区”,赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明在习惯航线附近养殖大蚝既未经相关部门许可办理《海域使用权证书》和《水域滩涂养殖证》,也未向海事部门申请发布《航行通告》,对往来航行的船舶带来触碰的隐患,也是导致被告船舶在断缆后往该片海域漂移时蚝排被船舶触碰致损的原因之一,其自身也存在过错,应当承担相应责任;最后,台风来临之前广西港航公司仅向船上船员发送台风预警讯息,对台风影响及本船的抗风能力估计不足,没有派人到现场检查指导船舶防台情况。“交炸三号”轮仅用直径约为20.00mm(“交炸三号”轮的《船舶检验证书簿》记载:艏锚链直径30.00mm,艉锚链直径26.00mm)的钢丝绳进行艏艉锚泊、系泊,未能选用较大直径缆绳,未能适当增加缆绳数量以提高防抗超强台风的能力,台风期间发生了漂移而致使与蚝排触碰事故的发生,亦存在过错,应承担相应的责任。

  综上,涉案事故系由台风及当事人双方的过错三方面原因力所致,其中“威马逊”台风的强度和等级远超过船舶正常抵抗台风能力系导致被告船舶断缆漂移触碰原告蚝排的最主要原因,其在导致涉案事故发生的原因力中应占70%的比例。广西港航公司未能充分预见台风的破坏力,采取适当的防台措施是导致涉案事故的次要原因。赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明未经批准在习惯航道附近设置蚝排,未向海事部门申请发布《航行通告》也存在一定过错。根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》(下称《侵权法》)第二十六条的规定:“被侵权人对损害的发生也有过错的,可以减轻侵权人的责任”,一审法院认定广西港航公司应承担20%的责任,赖福有、赖福艺、陈齐民、陈建明自行承担10%的责任。

  二、(2017)粤民申570号

  在该案中,原告李土权申请再审称:“彩虹”台风有气象部门进行预警,且车辆被台风刮起的物品损坏是常见的损害后果,并非不能预见。骑士酒店有义务在露天停车场架设一个有遮盖功能的棚子,并告知旅客将车辆提前转移到安全的停车库,但骑士酒店没有采取任何措施。因此,台风导致广告霓虹灯掉下来砸坏我车窗,而雨水灌进我的车内损坏了电路板,扩大了损害后果。一、二审判决认为我车辆受损是不可抗力造成,从而免除骑士酒店的赔偿责任是错误的。请求撤销二审判决,立案再审本案。

  广东省高级人民法院经审查认为,根据李土权申请再审的理由分析,本案争议的焦点在于骑士酒店是否应对李土权车辆损失承担赔偿责任。

  经一、二审法院查明,李土权的粤G×××××号小型轿车在2015年10月4日“彩虹”台风中受损。李土权主张台风是可预见、可避免及可克服的,不属于不可抗力,骑士酒店应对其车辆损失承担赔偿责任。事发地湛江市位于台风高发区域,气象部门等虽进行了预报,但“彩虹”台风是1949年以来10月登陆广东省的最强台风,其具体的变化和破坏力仍应认为是不能够预见的。即使能够预见,但“彩虹”台风登陆时中心最大风力达15级、阵风达18级,是不可避免的自然灾害,而其导致的巨大损失亦不能为一般人力所克服和防止,仍然成立不可抗力。李土权主张如果骑士酒店能够采取一定的保护措施如搭建棚户遮挡等则可以避免或减轻涉案车辆的损失,但双方之间没有车辆保管合同关系,要求骑士酒店做到在强台风中专门搭建棚户并不合理,且根据气象部门的预警,李土权对“彩虹”台风是知情的,涉案车辆因不可抗力“彩虹”台风而受损,李土权不能提供有效证据证明骑士酒店对涉案车辆损害的发生和扩大存在过错,因此,根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第二十九条“因不可抗力造成他人损害的,不承担责任。法律另有规定的,依照其规定”,一、二审法院认定骑士酒店不应对李土权涉案车辆损失承担赔偿责任,于法有据,并无不当。

  综上,李土权的再审申请不符合《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百条规定的情形。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二百零四条第一款,《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉的解释》第三百九十五条第二款规定,裁定如下:

  再审裁判结果

  驳回李土权的再审申请。

  在这个案中,法院认为事发地湛江市位于台风高发区域,这和笔者之前文章,认为在台风季节,台风构成了湛江港一个属性不谋而合。但因为台风“彩虹”是几是年来的最强台风,在安全港口方面即可被视为异常情况;在本案中法官因此判不可抗力成立。

  三、(2014)粤高法民四终字第185号

  在该案中,关于本案货损是否因不可抗力造成, 一审法院查明及认为根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百一十七条第二款规定,不可抗力是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。结合本案情况,太保厦门分公司承保的货物是由于强台风“海葵”所伴随的暴风把海水(或含雨水)吹进船舱致使冷轧板卷受损,双方争议的问题是强台风“海葵”是否属于不可抗力。根据《中华人民共和国合同法》第一百一十八条关于“当事人一方因不可抗力不能履行合同的,应当及时通知对方,以减轻可能给对方造成的损失,并应当在合理期限内提供证明”的规定,海西公司和祥盛公司应在合理期限内提供充分的证据证明本案货损系不可抗力所致,方可免责。从本案现有证据看,关于“海葵”强台风可能造成的影响,气象部门在台风到来前已有预报。对于该台风可能造成的影响,海西公司和祥盛公司作为从事水上货物运输的企业,应当比一般市场主体具有更专业的预见能力,可以提前采取加固等措施避免或减少损失的发生。事实上,本案货物货损正是由于船上雨布被台风吹开,导致海水进舱所致。鉴于本案货损发生的可预见性和可避免性,海西公司和祥盛公司关于本案货损由不可抗力造成的主张,不予认定。

  再审,广东省高级人民法院认为,祥盛公司和海西公司抗辩称涉案货损事故系受台风影响所致,属于不可抗力,承运人依法可以免责。不可抗力属于不可预见、不能避免并不能客服的客观情况。“海葵”强台风到来之前,有关气象部门已经发出预警,“海西8”轮于2012年8月6日进入锚地躲避台风,可见,“海葵”强台风并不属于不可预见的客观情况。祥盛公司和海西公司作为专业航运企业,应及时预见台风对货物运输的影响,及时做好加固、防护措施,避免货物受损。本案证据显示,“海西8”轮由于帆布被风吹开,导致海水(或含雨水)进入船舱,说明承运人未尽合理管货义务而导致货物受损,依法应承担相应的责任。祥盛公司和海西公司关于涉案货损系不可抗力所致的理由不能成立,予以驳回。

  四、(2016)鲁民终617号

  在该案中,2011年第5号热带风暴“米雷”于6月22日下午生成,于6月26日21时10分在荣成成山镇登陆。“米雷”台风给当地海上养殖造成了程度不同的损害是不争的事实,此亦表明海上养殖设施客观上难以达到足以抵御此类台风引起的异常风浪冲击的要求。

  据上,一审法院认为,因鲍鱼养殖设施的设置目前尚无强制性行业规范要求,獐子岛公司采取的非传统方式的试验性养殖并未被禁止。长青公司认为獐子岛公司养殖设施设置不当构成过错不能成立,其主张獐子岛公司应承担过错赔偿责任,法院不予支持。根据《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》第二十四条“受害人和行为人对损害的发生都没有过错的,可以根据实际情况,由双方分担损失”的规定,本案中獐子岛公司应对长青公司遭受的损失予以分担。

  獐子岛公司不可抗力免责的抗辩不能成立。当地养殖海域时常遭遇强台风袭击,獐子岛公司对于工厂化的海上养殖,应当采取适宜的养殖方式并尽到合理的谨慎,以避免养殖物资漂移造成他人养殖区的损害。《民法通则》第一百三十五条“不可抗力,是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况”的规定,对不可抗力设定了严格的构成要件。本案事实不足以认定为不可抗力所致损害,獐子岛公司的该项主张,法院不予支持。

  再审,山东省高级人民法院认为不可抗力是我国《侵权责任法》规定的免责事由,《民法通则》对于不可抗力做出明确规定,即,不可抗力是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。一个事件或事故是否符合不可抗力的条件应当具体到个案中做出相应的分析认定,相较于本案而言,獐子岛公司是从事海上养殖的专业公司,相较于常人更关心海况变化对其养殖物资的影响,“米雷”台风经过其养殖区,气象部门提前发布了气象通报,当地政府也发布了防台风的紧急通知,獐子岛公司事先已经知晓“米雷”台风经过其养殖海区的事实,因此,獐子岛公司预知台风来临的事实不符合不可抗力免责的构成要件,獐子岛公司主张本次损害事故系不可抗力造成,应当予以免责的理由不能成立。

  对比我国的《合同法》,该法规沿用《中华人民共和国民法通则》第153条规定:

  第一百五十三条 本法所称的不可抗力,是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。

  在第117条和118条对这个不可抗力概念的作出如下规定:

  第一百一十七条 因不可抗力不能履行合同的,根据不可抗力的影响,部分或者全部免除责任,但法律另有规定的除外。当事人迟延履行后发生不可抗力的,不能免除责任。

  本法所称不可抗力,是指不能预见、不能避免并不能克服的客观情况。

  第一百一十八条 当事人一方因不可抗力不能履行合同的,应当及时通知对方,以减轻可能给对方造成的损失,并应当在合理期限内提供证明。

  在这些判例中,法官们都在严格遵循《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百五十三条规定,认为构成不可抗力需同时满足“不能预见”、“不能避免”、“不能克服”三个条件。除非是能举证,台风的强度异常,所造成的后果不可避免不能克服,否则台风将无法被认定为不可抗力。

  再来看看枢密院判例,GeneralConstruction Ltd v Chue Wing & Co Ltd & Anor (Mauritius) [2013] UKPC 30(15 October 2013)案。

  在该案中,涉及的是毛里求斯在1994年遭受Hollanda气旋袭击,造成起重机的上半部分掉落,结果砸到旁边的建筑及房屋租客。起重机的运营商认为台风属于不可抗力,试图依赖不可抗力条款来寻求免责。

  事实查证,1960年毛里求斯遭遇二个气旋袭击,1961, 1962, 1964, 1966, 1967, 1970, 1972, 1975, 1978,1978年各遭遇一个,1980年三个,1981,1983, 1989各一个。风力风速各有差别,但法官们认为风速超过200公里每小时的气旋在毛里求斯是可预见的。

  首席法官审查了法国的判例法,直至目前的两项裁决,认为不可预见和不可抗拒两要素必定是相互交叉存在的。但首席法官也得出结论认为,法国判例法的重点在于该事件是否不可抗拒,如果不可预见性仍然是一个互补因素,那么不可抗拒将是不可减少的因素。此外,首席法官考虑毛里求斯的权威及对法律地位(包括法国当局)的理解时,认为最近从不可预见转移到不可抗拒。

  Writing for the Court of Civil Appeal in the present case, the Chief Justice examined the French case-law up to the two decisions of the Assemblée plénière, and noted their conclusion that the elements of imprévisibilité and irrésistibilité must co-exist (paras 68 and 72). But he also concluded that the "emphasis"in Francewas on whether the event was irresistible and that, if unforeseeability remained a "complementary" element, irresistibility was their reducible factor. Further, when (in paras 78-90) he came to considerMauritian authority and its understanding of the legal position (including French authority), he detected a recent "shift" from imprévisibilité to irrésistibilité (para 81). He concluded, speaking with reference to an appeal to the Cour de cassation relating to the effects in La Réunion of CycloneFiringa in 1989 (Cour de cass, 2ème Civ 18 March 1998):

  首席法官在第89和90段判决书中说到,虽然事件的不可抗拒性是关键因素,但同样的可预见性对于确定是否可以采取预防措施来避免灾难性后果变得很重要。总而言之,法国法院根据其不可抗拒性因素判定对气旋Firinga未不可抗力。事实上它是可以抗拒的,这是因为它是可预见的。换句话说,气旋的预防使人们有可能减轻它可能造成的灾难。

  89 In other words, while l'irrésistibilité of the event is the crucial element, the predictability of same becomes important to find whether precautions could have been taken to avoid the disastrous consequences.

  90 In sum,what is force majeure with respect to cyclone Firinga was decided by the French Courts on the basis of its résistibilité. The fact that it was résistible was decided by the fact that it was prévisible. In other words, the prévisibilitéof the cyclone rendered it possible for people to mitigate the disaster it would have caused."

  首席法官在第105和106段判决书中继续说到,当评估可预见性和不可抗拒性双重需要时,人们可能需要遵循这两个要素累积性质的本质。如果它是不可预见和不可抗拒的,毫无疑问,这是不可抗力的。但是,可能会发生一个事件,这个事件在它发生时是可预见的,但这是不可抗拒的。在这种情况下,它可被认定为不可抗力:因此,如果事件是可预见的但不可抗拒的,则可归于不可抗力,可以证明为使事件具有抗拒力而采取的所有措施都无济于事。法院需寻求的是,是否已采取所有合理措施来提供可预见的可抵抗性。

  105 When the Assemblée Plénière speaks of the double need of prévisibilité [sic] and irrésistibilité, one may need to follow what is the nature of the cumulative character of these two elements. If it is unpredictable and irresistible, there is no doubt, it is aforce majeure. But there may occur an event which is prévisible yet when it strikes, it is irresistible. In that case, it would qualify as a force majeure:

  106 Thus, where an event is predictable but irresistible, it amounts to a force majeure where it can be shown that all measures taken to make the event resistible were of no avail.What the courts are looking for is whether all reasonable measures have been taken to render the predictable resistible. ….

  最终,毛里求斯法官们认为气旋的发生或强度并非不可预见,因此不构成不可抗力事件。上诉人因此被判得承担赔偿责任。

  The judge held the appellant liable on the ground that the cyclone was not unforeseeable in either its occurrence or it sintensity and therefore did not constitute an event of force majeure. The Court of Civil Appeal, sitting in a constitution of five judges presided over by Y K J Yeung Sik Yuen CJ, who gave the judgment, upheld the trial judge after a detailed examination of authorities and principles relating to the concept of force majeure.

  上诉人不服判决,最终上诉至枢密院。枢密院司法委员会(Judicial Committee of the PrivyCouncil),是英国其中一个最高法院,亦是英国海外属地、殖民地和英联邦成员国家的最高上诉法院(thehighest court of appeal )和终审法院(court of last resort))。司法委员会审理案件至少应由三人组成合议庭共同审理,但通常是由5人参加。本案即由Neuberger勋爵,Mance勋爵,Clarke勋爵,Carnwath勋爵以及Toulson勋爵等5位大法官组成的枢密院,其中主审法官为Mance勋爵。委员会认为法官和毛里求斯的判例法在传统上已经定义了组成不可抗力事件的三个必要条件:

  (1)外部原因extériorité(2)不可预见imprévisibilité(3)不可抗拒irrésistibilité

  French and Mauritian case-law have traditionally identified three constituent elements of an event of force majeure: it must be (i) extérieur or étranger àla chose, (ii) imprévisibleand (iii) irrésistible.

  委员会认为在契约性和不正当性的背景下,学术原则一直并且仍然对不可抗力的三个要素的相关性和相互关系持怀疑态度。基本的学术论点是,可预见性的真正意义在于揭示导致损害的事件是否不可抗拒。如果在可以避免的情况下可以预见某些事情,那么这是不可抗拒的。在最近的契约性背景下的判决,仍然坚持在合同订立时的不可预见性及不可抗拒性,但这并不是在合同背景下令人惊讶的任何观点。如果某些事情在合同订立的同时可以预见,但没有特别的规定,那么缔约方可能会承担责任,或者尽管事实如此。

  Academic doctrine has been and remains somewhat sceptical about the relevance and inter-relationship of the three elements of force majeure, in both contractual and delictual contexts: see e.g. Encyclopédie Dalloz VoForce Majeure para 21, Revue trimestrielle de droit civil("RTD") Civ 4 oct-déc 1994 pp 871-876, Ouragan sur la force majeure par P H Antonmattei [JCP]1996, I3907, Bruschi, Revue Générale du Driot des Assurances ("RGDA") 1996pp. 385-392, Catastrophe naturelle etforce majeure par Fabrice Leduc, RGDA 1997, no 2 p. 421, Droit de la responsabilité civile,par Le Tourneau et Cadret, paras 905-906 and, most recently, the Droit de laresponsabilité et des Contrats par Le Tourneau Dalloz Action, 2010-2011), paras1807-1813. The basica cademic thesis is that the real relevance of foreseeability is in throwing light on whether the event causing the damage was irresistible. If something is foreseeable at a time when it can be avoided, then it is not irresistible.

  More recent decisions of both the 1ère Chambre and the Chambre sociale ina contractual context insist upon imprévisibilité at the time of conclusion of the contract as well as irrésistibilité (Pourvois Nos: 07-17134 of 30 October 2008 and 10-17726 of 16 May 2012). But this is not on any viewsurprising in a contractual context. If something is foreseeable when the contract is entered into, and no special provision is made for it, then a contracting party may be taken to have accepted responsibility for or despite it, if it materialises. "La jurisprudence poursuit un objectif deloyauté contractuelle": Fabrice Leduc in RGDA 1996 no. 2,cited above, p. 423. On the other hand, the Board can gain no real assistancefrom the passing reference to irresistibility alone in a decision of theChambre commerciale, of 4 December 2012, 11-25.964, cited to it by the appellant after the oral hearing.

  委员会在第17段判决书中,认为“合理”一词可以理解为仅仅表示缺乏过失就足以证明不可抗力的不可抗拒目的。原告接受没有过失或疏忽的行为与合理可行的行为标准有很大区别,被告没有过失或过错这一事实本身并不能证明他采取了一切措施,也就是说,合理可行的是合理的,实际上可以做到的;不可抗拒的概念包含了一个合理的,实际的可能性的标准,这就要求被告做的不仅仅是证明自己没有过失,相反,他必须进一步表明,一旦事件是可预见的,他就做了一切合理可行和切实可行的事情,而不仅仅是对他来说合理的做法。

  17. The word "reasonable" might be read as suggesting that mere absence of faute is sufficient to demonstrate irresistibility for the purposes of force majeure. The appellant accepts that this is not so. Inits written case before the Board, the appellant submits that standard is not to be regarded as "an absolute standard of impossibility". Rather itis, the appellant submits, the standard of a bon père de famille taking"those precautions which are reasonably and practicably possible in thecircumstances of the case". For bon père de famille, the Board woulditself substitute a "responsible crane operator". In its case, the appellant goes on expressly to accept, in this connection, that

  "there is a very real difference between absence of faute ornegligence and a standard of conduct referable to reasonable and practical possibility. The mere fact that a defendant has not been negligent or at faultdoes not of itself prove that he took all measures that were reasonably possible in the sense of being reasonably and practically available to him. In other words, a concept of irresistibilité which incorporates a standard of reasonable and practical possibility still requires a defendant to do much more than prove that he wasnot negligent. On the contrary, he must go further and show that once the event was foreseeable he did everything which was reasonably possible and practicable, not only that which it might have been reasonable for him to do."

  在第18段判决中,委员会引援了Mustill法官在J J Silber Ltdv. Islander Trucking Ltd[1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.243案中所说(此案的具体情况,可参之前文章,已有详细介绍),在一方面要求采取一切可能的预防措施,一方面是按照审慎的现行做法合理行事。

  Under article 17.2, Mustill J in JJ Silber at p. 247 identified the standard under article 17.2 as being" somewhere between,on the one hand, a requirement to take every conceivable precaution and, on theother hand, a duty to do no more than act reasonably in accordance with prudent current practice".

  根据上文开头所作的保留,委员会认为民事上诉法院的做法是本上诉人满意的做法。委员会也在民事上诉法院的方法中看到了很大的力量。但是,由于上诉只是在一方面提出,因此委员会更愿意表达不同于此的观点,而且没有必要这样做。委员会认为重要的是确定构成该事件的情况的结合。如果这些都是可以预见的,那么很难避免得出应该采取措施解决这些问题的结论。但可预见性需要在实际意义上理解。可能发生反常事件,大多数负责人可能无法防范。责任是在这些情况下采取合理可行的预防措施,而不是使绝对不可能发生的事故。因此,在本案的情况下,毛里求斯一般可以预见气旋本身就不足以说明这一点。特定的气旋可能会出现不可预见的特征,或者更有可能的是,它可能与其他因素一起引起一个反常的事件,需负责的起重机操作员无法合理和切实地防范这种反常事件。

  What is in the Board's view important is to identify the conjunction of circumstances constituting the event. If these are all foreseeable, then it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that steps should have been taken to address them. But foreseeability needs itself to be understood in a practical sense. Freak accidents can occur against which the most responsible persons may not guard. The duty is to take those precautions which are reasonably and practicably possible in the circumstances of the case, not to make freak accidents absolutely impossible. So, in the present case, it is not by itself sufficient to say that cyclones in general are foreseeable inMauritius. Itis possible that a particular cyclone may occur with unforeseeable characteristics or, perhaps more likely, that it may, in conjunction with otherfactors, give rise to a freak event against which responsible crane operators cannot be expected reasonably and practicably to guard.

  在第22段判决书中,委员会认为,当气旋来袭时而把吊拆掉是非常愚蠢的做法。委员会认为在气旋季节期间对起重机操作员的责任太高,即使事后可以看出拆解将会是在气旋来袭之前完成。实际上,如果起重机设计用来承受不时袭击毛里求斯的气旋,委员会认为没有理由说起重机操作员为什么仅仅因为预测到了这样一个气旋就应该考虑拆卸起重机,即使时间似乎确实允许他们这么做。

  On the evidence, it would have been very foolish to have been caught half way through dismantling the crane when the cyclone struck. In so far as the Court in paragraph 114of its judgment seems to have suggested that the appellant was or may have been unable to show force majeure simply because it did not start dismantling the crane at the time when an area of low atmospheric pressure emerged south of Diego Garcia, because that area of low pressure might develop into a cyclone,that appears to the Board to put the duty on crane operators during the cyclone season much too high, even if it can be seen with hindsight that dismantling would then have been completed before the cyclone struck. Indeed, in the caseof a crane designed to withstand cyclones of the character known to strikeMauritius from time to time, the Board sees no reason why the crane operator should necessarily contemplate dismantling the crane merely because such a cyclone was predicted, even if time did appear to allow such dismantling.

  委员会在第30段判决书中认为,之前气旋的历史表明,自1985年以来这种起重机在毛里求斯那里使用时,毛里求斯没有任何风速超过200公里的旋风袭击毛里求斯,并且没有证据表明其他类似的起重机在经历这样的风速的气旋时正在使用中。上诉人的态度是,在具有这种阵风的气旋中操作起重机一定是可以的,从证据中可以看出,既不是基于询问也不是基于经验。负责任的起重机操作员没有义务确保发生事故绝对不可能发生的情况。但其职责是采取在案件情况下合理可行的预防措施。这肯定包括检查它的起重机将在任何情况下,除非发生异常情况,否则预计会存在先前已知的类型超过200公里每小时的阵风的气旋。

  The history of previous cyclones shows, however, that no cyclone with wind gusts over 200kmph had hit Mauritius during the period since 1985 when this crane was in use there, and there was no evidence of other similar cranes being in use during any cyclone when such wind speeds were experienced. The appellant's attitude,that it must be all right to operate the crane during a cyclone with such windgusts, was, so far as appeared from the evidence, based neither on enquiry noron experience. A responsible crane operator is not obliged to ensure a situation in which it is absolutely impossible that an accident could occur.But its duty is to take those precautions which are reasonably and practicably possible in the circumstances of the case. This surely includes checking thatits cranes will, at all events barring freak circumstances, be expected tosurvive cyclones of a type previously known to occur involving wind gusts ofover 200 kmph.

  委员会认为,在这种情况下,可能的情况是,如果上诉人已经提出了解决这方面问题的证据-由此承担责任-这将证明起重机,包括其中没有明显缺陷的轴环,设计用于承受风的旋风阵风超过200公里每小时,其他特征就是已知这种旋风。在那种情况下,必须考虑一些具体的进一步原因;这个原因可能与其他一些外部事件有关,这些外部事件可能被认为是不可抗拒的。一块石头被旋风从建筑物上移开并砸到了套管上可能是一个例子,或者是一些怪异的气旋动作打破了套管,一个负责任的起重机操作员不会合理和切实地通过其获得和使用的起重机的设计或任何其他方式来保护。结合起重机得到适当维护保养的认定,可能将事故是由于不可抗力造成的一个很好的案例。相比之下,套管内的潜在缺陷(在这种情况下显然没有建议存在的依据)似乎不够;它缺乏外在性(完全不同于它可能-委员会可能没有表达任何观点-根据民法典第1286条的不同条款承担责任)。因此,根据目前的证据,委员会认为没有理由与民事上诉法院的结论有所不同,即上诉人并未证实起重机倒塌和随之而来的对两答辩人的损害是由不可抗力事件引起的。

  The Board considers in these circumstances that the Court's third theme is one which was open to it, and moreover, in the light of M Curé's answers in cross-examination, well-founded. It may be that, if the appellant had calledevidence addressing this aspect – the onus being on it to do so – it would haveproved that the crane, including its collar in which no defect was evidently found, was designed to withstand cyclones with wind gusts of over 200 kmph andwith the other characteristics that such cyclones are known to present. In that event, some specific further cause would have had to be considered; that causemight have been related to some other external event which could be regarded as irrésistible - a stone dislodged from the building by the cyclone and falling onto the collar could be an example, or some freak cyclonic action breaking thecollar against which a responsible crane operator in Mauritius would not be expected reasonably and practicably to guard by the design of the cranes it acquired and used or by any other means. Combined with the finding that the crane was properly maintained, there might then have been a good case fortreating the accident as being due to force majeure. In contrast, a latent defect within the collar (which there was in this case evidently no basis forsuggesting existed) would not appear to suffice; it would lack exteriorité(quite apart from the fact that it might - possibly, the Board expresses noview - engage liability under a different article of the Code civil - article1286). On the evidence as it stood, the Board sees, therefore, no reason to differ from the Court ofCivil Appeal's conclusion that the appellant has not established that the collapse and consequent damage to the two respondents was caused by an event of force majeure.

  在本案中,委员会认为,仅仅是认为不可预见性是不足以认定气旋为不可抗力,还必须是不可抗拒的。如果某件事是可预见的,其当时也是可避免的,那么它就不是不可抗拒的;但是如果是不可抗拒的,那么将被认为是不可抗力。但是在这种情况下,还必须举证已经采取了一切合理的可能的预付措施,按照审慎的现行做法合理行事来减少不可抗力所造成的后果。

  总结:

  基于以上分析,笔者认为,在台风季节,频繁的台风构成了马迹山等港口的特性,导致船舶不能安全使用该港口,从而构成港口不安全。需要明确的是,港口安全问题只是针对特定的船舶和特定的航次(时间段)而言,港口安全并不需要至始至终,一直都保持安全。比如,马迹山对于H轮而言,特定的航次(7月份),因为遭遇了台风,不安全。但是马迹山港,对于不挂靠该港的其它任何船舶而言,都是安全的。在另一方面,如果没有台风袭击,马迹山上对于H轮而言,也是安全的。

  比如在Lensen Shipping v. Anglo- SovietShipping (1935) 52 Ll.L.Rep. 141 (C.A.).(The “Terneuzen”)案中,租家接连安排到Leningrad装货,但在某个航次,却在泊位搁浅坐底了,尽管前一个航次还是好好的,上诉庭还是判租家得为安全泊位负责。

  Despite the charterers’ lack of knowledge of the unsafety of the berth, the Court of Appeal held the charterers liable for the damage caused.

  另参法官Mustill在The “Mary Lou”[1981]2 Lloyd’sRep.272案中在第279页判决书中所说的,谨慎和安全并不需要如一枚硬币的两面,有时候发生事故仅仅运气不好。

  But care and safety are not necessarily the opposite sides of the same coin. A third possibility must be taken into account, namely, that the casualty was the result of simple bad luck.

  又如《Time Charter》Chapter10-Safe Ports and Berths,10.52中说的如下:

  So, in particular, the charterers will be in breach even if ignorant, despite taking care, of the unsafety.

  在众多现成的判例面前,已经有既定的法律,我们没有必要再去解释到底什么才算是安全港口,只需看特定的情况下,这些特定的安全保证有没有被违反。如Roskill勋爵在The“Hermine ”[1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 212 (C.A.)案中在第214页判决书中所说:

  Accordingly It is now quite unnecessary, in these unsafe port or unsafe berth cases, to refer back to the multitude of earlier decisions…There is the law clearly stated. What has to be determined by the tribunal of fact in each case is whether, on the particular facts, the particular warranty of safety has or has not been broken.

  回到H轮的情况中来就是,H轮无法安全呆着并使用马迹山港口,租家的港口安全保证被违反,因此租家得赔偿船东损失。

  关于不可抗力的问题,《Benjamin's Sale of Goods》一书提到:

  不可抗力不是英国法律中的一个条款,但在大陆法系中却是众所周知的。例如法国,在法国法律中有相对明确的含义。法国起草者同意,未能履行义务可能是由于不可抗力的原因,如果寻求免责的一方没有任何过错,发生的事件具有以下特点:

  (1)不可抗拒irrésistibilité-事件必须使他的义务不可能履行,而不仅仅是更繁重;

  (2)不可预见imprévisibilité- 事件不能合理地预见,因为他应该采取措施,以防止或避免它;

  (3)外部原因extériorité- 事件必须来自某种外在的原因,即不在其责任范围内,例如货物本身的瑕疵。

  Force majeure is not a term of art in English law, but it is well known in continental legal systems, e.g. that ofFrance, and it has a relativelywell defined meaning in French law. French writers are agreed that a failure of performance will be attributable to force majeure if, without any fault of the party seeking to be excused, an event occurs which possesses the following characteristics:

  (1)irrésistibilité - the event must render performance of his obligation impossible, and not merely more onerous; (2) imprévisibilité - the event mustnot be reasonably foreseeable, for he ought then to have taken steps to preventor avoid it; (3) extériorité - the event must proceed from some external cause,i.e. not from a cause within his sphere of responsibility such as vice in the goods themselves.

  在The“Radauti”[1987]2 Lloyd’s Rep.276案中,Staughton法官认为就“不可抗力”这个词在英国法律中甚至具有一般意义而言,他一定会怀疑它是否必然表达了第二个因素,即不可预见imprévisibilité,或者至少他怀疑这个诉求是否被这个合同的起草人所支持。可能会预见到一些战争,一些罢工和一些异常的暴风雨。他认为这更多的是一个因果关系的问题:是否真的可以预见某一特定危险的发生可能导致一方当事人的未能履约。

  Insofar as the expression "force majeure" has even a general meaning in English law, I would for my part doubt whether it necessarily conveys the second element, imprévisibilité,or at any rate I doubt if that notion was held by the draftsman of this contract. Some wars may be foreseen, some strikes and some abnormal tempests orstorms. I would suggest it is more a question of causation: whether the incidence of a particular peril which could have been foreseen can really be said to have caused one party's failure to performance. At all events, I do not consider that the title "Force majeure" to cl. 33 in this case is sufficient to exclude congestion from being within the word "hindrances", even though, as the umpire found, it was well knownthat Tripoli had suffered from congestion for a number of years.

  在该案中,对于组成不可抗力的三个要素的解释方面,(1)不可抗拒irrésistibilité-(2)不可预见imprévisibilité(3)外部原因extériorité,Staughton法官不认为必然表达了第二个因素,他认为这更多的是一个因果关系的问题:是否真的可以预见某一特定危险的发生可能导致一方当事人的未能履约。

  因此,在H轮案中,第10号台风“安比”即非不可预见,也非不可避免;租家无法引援不可抗力需求免责。

  最后,需注意的是如果某些事情在合同订立的同时可以预见,但没有特别的规定,那么缔约方可能会承担责任,或者尽管事实如此。否则一定签订合同,那么剩下的只能是依据合约严格执行。

  如《Chittyon Contracts》一书中所说:

  Aconcomitant of the doctrine of freedom of contract is that of the sanctity ofcontract.

  契约自由原则的共同之处在于契约的神圣性。

  如果有违反,将需承担责任。

  修改于2018.08.03

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)

智慧如你,不想发表一点想法吗 ~
海运圈聚焦客户端
扫描下载
聚焦海运圈资讯