《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载21

　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　Commencement of laytime

　　装卸时间的起算

　　3.129 Although most modern tankers have segregated ballast tanks, it was not uncommon until comparatively recently for tankers to use their cargo tanks to carry ballast on the non-carrying voyage. However, the presence of ballast in the cargo tanks did not prevent notice of readiness being tendered at the load port, although it was and is common for most tanker charters to exclude from laytime time spent in deballasting.

　　3.129尽管现代许多油轮已经是有分隔压载舱，直到近些年来，对于油轮在压载航程中使用货舱装载压载水的情形已不多见了。然而，货舱装有压载水并不妨碍该轮在装货港递交准备就绪通知书，尽管是多数的油轮租船合同中都规定了将排卸压载水花费的时间从装卸时间中扣除掉。

　　3.130 This exception apart, the holds must be clear and available. The reason why was explained by Kennedy LJ in the Sailing Ship Lyderhorn case as follows:

　　. . . it is impossible to say that a ship is at the disposal of the shipper who is to load her when there is still in the ship’s holds a quantity of cargo for a consignee who is engaged in discharging. It is impossible to suppose that the thing can be done without friction and without arrangement between two persons who have no connexion with one another, the receiver of the inward cargo and the loader of the outward cargo.

　　3.130除了这一例外，货舱必须保证清洁可用。对于这一理由Kennedy大法官在Sailing Ship Lyderhorn—案中做了如下解释：

　　……当船舶的货舱内还留有一定数量其它收货人正在卸下的货物时，就不可能说这时她已经在预计装船的托运人的支配之下了。这不可能想象，对于进口货的收货人和出口货的装货人，这两个毫不相干的人之间不作安排，没有利益冲突就会把装和卸两件事办好。

　　3.131 It may have been the possibility of a special arrangement being made that Phillimore LJ had in mind when in London Traders Shipping Co Ltd v. General Mercantile Shipping Co Ltd, he said:

　　. . . the decision of the court must not be deemed to whittle down the general duty of the shipowner to have all outward cargo discharged when he presented his vessel to receive the homeward cargo, unless in special circumstances, or when dealing with a particular cargo the loading and unloading could continue simultaneously.

　　3.131这或许存在已经进行了某种特殊安排的可能性，也就是Phillimore大法官在 London Traders Shipping Co Ltd v. General Mercantile Shipping Co Ltd—案中所设想的：

　　……除非在某些特殊情况下，或者针对某些特殊具体的货物，装/卸货可以同时进行，法院的判决必定不能被认为是削弱了船东本应承担的基本义务，即当她宣布已做好准备装载回程货物时，应将其所有运来的货物全部卸下。

　　3.132 In that case, a large quantity of coal from the previous voyage was stored on deck because the shipowner had purchased it as bunkers for the homeward voyage. This did not, held the Court of Appeal, prevent the vessel from being ready to load maize, for although it had been cargo it was not at the relevant time.

　　3.132在该案中，船东将上一航次所运载的煤炭购买了一大部分作为返回航程的燃料堆放在甲板上。上诉法院判定：这种情形并不妨碍该轮宣布已经做好了装载玉米的准备工作，尽管它曾经是货物，但在当时已经不是的了。

　　3.133 The importance of the holds being ready at the time notice of readiness is presented was stressed by the Court of Appeal in The Tres Flores, where Roskill LJ said:

　　. . . it has long been accepted in this branch of the law that a vessel which presents herself at a loading port must be in a position to give the charterer unrestricted access to all her cargo spaces before she can give a valid notice of readiness. This state of readiness must be unqualified. It is not open to the shipowner to say: ‘‘Here is my ship; she is not quite ready yet but I confidently expect to be able to make her ready by such time as I consider it likely that you will in fact need her.’’ The charterer has contracted for the exclusive and unrestricted use of the whole of the vessel’s available cargo space, and he is entitled to expect that that space will be placed at his disposal before he can be called upon to accept the vessel as having arrived and thereafter being at his risk and expense as regards time.

　　3.133 上诉法院在审理The Tres Flores—案时，Roskill大法官强调了在递交准备就绪通知书的当时货舱要做好准备的重要性。他说：

　　……长期以来，在这一法律领域，人们能够接纳的观点是在装货港，船舶必须达到给予承租人无限制地使用其所有载货空间的状态，才能递交有效的准备就绪通知书。而且这种准备就绪的状态又是无条件限制的。这并不能任由船东去说：‘这就是我的船，尽管她现在还没有完全准备好，但我很自信，当我认为您可能实际上需要她时，预计她一定能够会准备好。’合同中已订明承租人可以全部地和无限制地使用该轮的一切可用于装货的空间，并且，在他被要求接受该船已经是抵达船之前，他有权预计到全部这些空间都能在其支配之下，所以，在这之后相关时间内的风险和费用均由他来承担。

　　3.134 In the same case, Lord Denning put forward a similar view:

　　One thing is clear. In order for a notice of readiness to be good, the vessel must be ready at the time that the notice is given, and not at a time in the future. Readiness is a preliminary existing fact which must exist before you can give a notice of readiness...

　　and a little later on, he continued:

　　In order to be a good notice of readiness, the master must be in a position to say: ‘‘I am ready at the moment you want me, whenever that may be, and any necessary preliminaries on my part to the loading will not be such as to delay you.’’ Applying this test it is apparent that notice of readiness can be given even though there are some further preliminaries to be done, or routine matters to be carried on, or formalities observed. If those things are not such as to give any reason to suppose that they will cause any delay, and it is apparent that the ship will be ready when the appropriate time arrives, then notice of readiness can be given.

　　3.134在这个同一案件中，Denning勋爵也阐述了类似的观点:

　　这件事是很明显的。若要使准备就绪通知书有效，该轮就必须在递交通知书的当时就已经准备就绪，而不是将来某个时间。准备就绪是您能够递交准备就绪通知书之前所必须存在的基本事实……

　　稍后，他又指出：

　　要使准备就绪通知书有效，必须站在船长的位置说：‘本轮已做好了一切必要的准备工作，在您需要随时可用，无论什么时间，并且对于我这方面，任何装货必要的基本工作都不会给您造成延迟。’根据这一原则，很显然，即使该轮还有一些进一步的准备工作要做、进行日常保养事项或办理正常手续，她仍然可以递交准备就绪通知书。如果办理这些事情不至于成为造成延迟的任何原因，而且明显地在适当时间之内该轮会准备就绪的话，那么准备就绪通知书就可递交。

　　3.135 However, it was held in London Arbitration 27/92 that a valid notice of readiness might be given where the vessel had slops of previous cargo on board where the charterers had previously evinced an intention to load at a second load port and the tank in which the slops were held was not originally required but required only after the charterers changed their minds and wished to load two parcels at the first load port. The same approach was followed in London Arbitration 19/05 where the charterers initially planned to load at two ports but changed their minds and sought to use the cargo tanks earmarked for the second port, which required further cleaning before they could be used at the first port. The tribunal therefore held that the notice of readiness in respect of the tanks originally scheduled for loading at the first port was valid.

　　3.135在报道的伦敦仲裁1992年第27号案中，当时所涉及的船舶上还存有前一票货物的污油水，尽管如此，还是裁决可以递交有效的准备就绪通知书，因为承租人以前就表示过他打算到第二个装港装货，而且该轮存有污油水的油舱并不是原先要用的，而是在承租人改变了主意，希望在第一个装港装两票货后才需要使用它。在报道的伦敦仲裁2005年第27号案中也遵循同样的处理方法，当时承租人起初计划在2个港口装货，但后来改变主意试图使用专门为第2个港预留的货油舱，他们能够在第1个港口使用之前需要进一步的清洁。因而，仲裁庭裁定，对于原先已经计划在第1个港口装货的油舱来说，准备就绪通知书是有效的。

　　3.136 The dispute in The Tres Flores arose because, when the vessel’s holds were inspected by the port authorities prior to loading a cargo of maize, they were found to be infested. As a result, the port authorities ordered the fumigation of the vessel and it was not until this was completed that the courts held that she was ready.

　　3.136在The Tres Flores案，产生的争议是：该轮在装玉米前港口当局验舱时发现有虫害，结果要求该轮熏舱，而且法院也判定该轮直到熏舱完成时才算准备就绪。
　　

　　《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接（点击可购买）

　　海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长（微信号CaptWei）