《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载37

2019-03-06739
  《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

  CHAPTER 3 第3章

  Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

  3.292 The owners having succeeded at the end of the day on the basis of waiver, there are a number of points that can be made in relation to that doctrine, arising from Potter LJ’s conclusion and what was said earlier in the judgment:

  (a) The judgment in The Happy Day deals only with a situation where the notice of readiness is invalid because it was tendered prior to the arrival of the vessel at the specified destination, that is at the geographical point at which the parties have agreed that notice may be given. It does not purport to deal with situations where the notice is invalid for any other reason.

  (b) A notice of readiness valid in form must be served on a party named in the charter as the party designated to receive such notice of readiness.

  (c) The notice may be annotated as being received, but must not be rejected. It follows from this that the party receiving the notice must have knowledge of the material facts relevant to their decision relating to what to do about the notice.

  (d) Where the notice is to be served not upon the charterers, but upon the receivers/ agents through whom the charterers propose to perform their obligations, those parties may be deemed to have implied authority not only to receive the notice, but to waive that invalidity, although the issue should be addressed by the tribunal of fact dealing with the case in the first instance. In The Happy Day, it appears that the charterers did not take the point in the arbitration that the agents lacked authority. Had they done so, presumably it would have been necessary to show not only that they did not have actual authority, but that they did not have implied or ostensible authority.

  (e) Waiver of the invalidity of the original notice will be deemed to take effect at the commencement of loading or discharging, as the case may be. The position will then be as if a valid notice had been tendered at that time or as soon thereafter as the charter might provide and time will commence as per the charterparty. In The Happy Day, discharge began on a Saturday, an excluded day. Laytime therefore commenced on the following Tuesday as if notice had been given on Monday, after the weekend exclusion. The case is not authority for the proposition that time runs from the commencement of loading or dis¬charge.

  3.292最后,船东依据弃权理论成功胜诉。然而,从Potter大法官的推断和其判词的前一部分所说的内容中,可以总结出下列很多要点:

  (a) 在The Happy Day案判词中,仅仅处理了准备就绪通知书在船舶抵达指定目的地(即是当事双方同意通知书可以递交的地理位置)之前递交而是无效的情形。并没有处理因其他原因导致通知书无效的情况。

  (b) 准备就绪通知书在形式上必须是有效的而且要送达到租船合同指明的当事方,因为该当事方就是由合同指定去接收该通知书的人士。

  (c) 通知书可能在收到时批注加签,但不能被拒绝。得出结论是,接收通知书的当事方必须知道如何处理通知书并且了解他们所做决定相关的重要事实。

  (d) 当通知书没有送达到承租人,却送到替代承租人履行义务的收货人/代理人时,这些人士可能被认为是拥有默示的授权不仅去接收通知书,而且放弃通知书无效递交的权利,尽管这一争议应当是由审理案情的仲裁庭在初审时进行处理决定。在The Happy Day案,显然承租人并没有把代理缺少授权这一点提交仲裁。如果他们真的这样做了,大概也要必须证明不仅他们没有真正的授权,而且没有默示授权或表面的授权。

  (a) 对初始通知书的无效性放弃其权利,在开始装卸货当时被认开始生效,视情况而定。这一法律地位是如同有效的通知书在当时递交的情形,或者如同此后租船合同一旦做出规定,则装卸时间就根据该合同开始起算。在The Happy Day案,卸货时间是在星期六这一除外时间开始的。因此,装卸时间就从下一周的星期二开始起算,在扣除周末时间之后,好像通知书是在星期一递交的一样。该案件并不是从实际开始装卸货当时起算装卸时间这一议题方面的判例。

  3.293 It would appear that, in addition to waiver, issues of estoppel were raised in two slightly different ways in this case. The owners argued in submissions to the arbitrators that the original notice of readiness had been ‘‘accepted’’ and on the basis of that, that the charterers were estopped from denying its validity. The arbitrators however found that it had merely been marked ‘‘received’’. They also found that the statement of facts incorrectly recorded that the notice had been accepted, but remarked that the owners had not placed reliance upon that incorrect statement. They therefore rejected the owners’ argument on estoppel. In The Mexico I, Mustill LJ had cast doubt on the value of an acceptance of an invalid notice of readiness, saying:

  However, since as the arbitrators point out, the acceptance must have been given in reliance upon the master’s implied assurance that the ship was ready for discharge, it cannot have any value.

  That was however in the context of an overstowed cargo, and the agents would not necessarily know when that cargo had been removed.

  3.293在该案,看来似乎除了弃权之外,也通过2种稍微不同的方式提出了禁止翻供这一议题。船东在其提交给仲裁员的文书请求中争议道:初始的准备就绪通知书已经被‘接受(不是接收)’因而,在此基础上,承租人不能禁止翻供否认它的有效性。然而,仲裁员认定通知书仅是标注‘接收’。他们还认定事实陈述是错误记录通知书被接受的情况,但却评论说船东没有依赖这不正确的事实陈述。因此他们否决了船东关于禁止翻供的观点。在The Mexico I案,Mustill大法官曾经对接受一个无效通知书的价值产生过怀疑,他说:

  然而,既然仲裁员指出,接受,必须是对船舶已经准备好卸货这一船长默示的保证的信赖,并没有其它任何价值。

  然而,在有货物被倒装和有货物压在其上的情况下,代理是不一定知道何时能够可以卸货的。

  3.294 Potter LJ also dealt with their alternative argument relating to estoppel by convention, saying:

  . . . Since I am of that opinion (i.e. that the owners should succeed on the basis of waiver), it is not strictly necessary to consider Mr Eder’s alternative submission, namely that at, or as from, the time of commencement of discharge, the parties were operating upon a common assumption that the NOR was valid and/or that it was unnecessary for the owners to serve a further NOR to start laytime running, so that an estoppel by convention arose whereby the charterers were precluded from later asserting that the NOR served was invalid.

  80. Estoppel by convention may be held to arise where both parties to a transaction:

  . . . act on an assumed state of facts or law, the assumption being either shared by both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other: see Republic of India v. India SS Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 at 913. The effect of an estoppel by convention is to preclude a party from denying the assumed facts or law if it would be unjust to allow them to go back on the assumption.

  (Lord Justice Potter then cited a number of authorities relating to estoppel by convention)

  82.For the doctrine to operate, there must be some mutually manifest conduct by the parties, which is based on a common assumption which the parties have agreed on, and for that purpose ‘‘Agreement need not be expressed, but may be inferred from conduct or even silence,’’ per Lord Justice Staughton giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘‘The Indian Grace’’) (No 2), [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 12 at p. 20; [1997] 2 WLR 538 at p. 549.

  83. Mr Eder’s submissions in respect of estoppel by convention principally centred upon the statement of facts and the inferences to be drawn from the fact that (a) the NOR was stated to have been ‘‘accepted’’ and (b) the parties had signed a timetable of events which appeared to be based on the laytime provisions and therefore to assume their application.

  Potter LJ then set out what had happened in the arbitration and concluded in relation to estoppel by convention:

  Given that the approach of a tribunal of first instance to any question of estoppel by convention must be to examine and make findings as to the actual state of mind of the parties concerned (and for this purpose the charterers’ state of mind and knowledge may call for separate examination from that of the receivers/agents) it seems to me that, contrary to the position on waiver, the findings of the arbitrators are inadequate to sustain their decision on the basis of (an inferred) estoppel by convention.

  3.294大法官Potter还讨论另一个有关根据行为上的禁止翻供的争议,说:

  ……既然我已认为(即,船东应能依据弃权胜诉),严格地讲,已经没有必要再考虑Eder先生(船东辩护律师)另一个观点,即是,或者是从,卸货开始当时,双方当事人依据通知书是有效的这一共同的假设前提各自开展行动,和/或,这对船东来说没有必要再次递交通知书就可以开始起算装卸时间,因此,所提出的行为上的禁止翻供在此是剥夺了承租人后来宣称通知书是无效的权利。

  80.行为上的禁止翻供是可以在交易双方之间产生的:

  ……依据假设的事实情况或法律而各自开展行动,双方都知道这一假设前提,或者一方提出并由另一方默许同意:参看Republic of India v. India SS Co Ltd (No 2) [1998] AC 878 at 913案。由行为上的禁止翻供是剥夺了一方否认假定的事实或法律的权利,如果这证明允许他们回到假设的起点是不公平的话。

  (Potter大法官也还援引了很多有关行为上的禁止翻供的先例)

  82.如果这一原理可行,这必须有一些当事双方明显的共同行为,这些行为是基于双方已经同意的共同假设前提,还有,‘不需要以协议形式表示出来,但可以从他们的行动中,或者甚至是沉默中推断出来’,如同Staughton大法官在上诉法院审理Republic of India v. India Steamship Co Ltd (‘‘The Indian Grace’’) (No 2), [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 12 at p. 20; [1997] 2 WLR 538 at p. 549案的判词中所提出的那样。

  83.Eder先生关于行为上的禁止翻供的观点主要集中在事实陈述书,而且,是由以下2方面推导出来的:(a)通知书上载明是已经被‘接受’和(b)当事双方已经签署船舶动态时间表,其上显示是基于装卸时间条款,因此假定它们适用于此。

  接着,Potter大法官列举出在仲裁中发生的情况并就行为上的禁止翻供做出论断:

  假设,初审的仲裁庭对行为上的禁止翻供产生的任何问题的处理方法必须接受进一步检验,而且对有关双方当时实际的内心状况进一步认定的话(对于承租人的内心状况和知识水平,可能需要去单独测试收货人/代理人才能得出),似乎对我来说,这不符合弃权的法律地位。仲裁员基于行为上的禁止翻供而做出的认定是不足以证实他们所做出的判决。

  3.295 The court also considered and rejected an argument by the owners based on futility.

  3.295 法院还对船东基于无效果提出的争议进行了探讨并驳回这一论点。

  Notice of readiness and clause 6 of the Asbatankvoy form of charter

  准备就绪通知书和Asbatankvoy租船合同格式范本第6条款

  3.296 The Asbatankvoy form of charter (formerly Exxonvoy 69) is one of the most commonly used forms of tanker charterparty. Clause 6 of Part II of the charter deals with notices of readiness and provides:

  NOTICE OF READINESS. Upon arrival at customary anchorage at each port of loading or discharge, the Master or his agent shall give the Charterer or his agent notice by letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone that the Vessel is ready to load or discharge cargo, berth or no berth and laytime, as hereinafter provided, shall commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of such notice, or upon the Vessel’s arrival in berth (i.e. finished mooring when at a sealoading or discharging terminal and all fast when loading or discharging alongside a wharf), whichever first occurs.

  This presents a number of problems. If ‘‘arrival’’ in the opening line means anchoring, what is the position if the vessel proceeds directly into berth? The second part of the clause provides for time to commence upon arrival in berth but that is after notice has been given at the customary anchorage.

  3.296 Asbatankvoy租船合同格式范本(原Exxonvoy 69 )是最常用的油轮租船合同中之一。该租船合同第6条款针对准备就绪通知书规定如下:

  准备就绪通知书 一旦船舶抵达每一个装/卸港口的习惯性锚地,船长或其代理人必须通过信函、电报、无线电或电话递交给承租人或他的代理人船舶已经做好装/卸货物准备的通知书,无论靠泊与否,除非下述规定,装卸时间必须在收到该通知书之后6个小时届满当时开始起算,或者是在船舶抵达泊位之后起算并扣除6个小时通知时间(当在海上装/卸货站点时,以完成系泊为准;当是靠泊码头时,以所有缆绳上桩系牢为准),无论那种情况,以先发者为准。

  就此提出了许多问题。如果在开阔地界是指‘抵达’锚地,那么,在船舶直接驶往泊位靠泊,是什么位置递交通知书?该条款的第二部分规定了时间在抵达泊位时生效,但,如果在习惯性锚地已经递交了通知书之后靠泊,情况又如何?

  3.297 This has led some masters and owners to believe that they can give notice of readiness underway—either passing through a customary anchorage or whilst pausing briefly underway, for example to pick up a pilot.

  3.297这就导致了一些船长和船东认为,船舶在航时也可以递交准备就绪通知书——无论是通过习惯性锚地或者是航行中短暂停留,例如,接领航员上船时。

  3.298 There have been a number of major decisions over the last hundred years relating to the point at which notice of readiness may be tendered under a port charterparty. In most of these, the vessel concerned had anchored when notice was given. The exception is the case of The Maratha Envoy, where the vessel concerned first anchored at the Weser lightship at the mouth of the river Weser then moved up river to Brake on the flood tide, gave notice of readiness, turned in the river and went back to the anchorage. This manoeuvre was described by Lord Diplock in the House of Lords as ‘‘showing the chimney’’, ‘‘a charade’’ and ‘‘a voyage of convenience’’ and, perhaps not unsurprisingly, it was held that the notice given upriver was invalid.

  3.298近百年来,有关在港口租船合同下可以递交准备就绪通知书的地点位置这一问题,已经有很多主要的案例。在这些大部分的案例中,有关船舶在通知书递交时已经抛锚。在The Maratha Envoy案,却是个例外,该船舶第一次是在德国Weser河口灯塔处抛锚,尔后,在高潮时开到上游Brake港递交通知书后又折回到原地抛锚。这一机动策略在上议院被Diplock勋爵描述为‘在展示她的烟囱/放烟雾’、‘游戏表演’以及‘便利的航次’,因而,也许令人奇怪的是,判决在上游递交的通知书是无效的。

  3.299 In The Johanna Oldendorff, Viscount Dilhorne said:

  . . . that under a port charterparty [, for a ship] to be an arrived ship, that is to say a ship at a place where a valid notice of readiness to load or discharge can be given, she must have ended her voyage at the port named.

  3.299在The John Oldendorff案,Dihorne子爵:

  ……港口租船合同下, [对于一艘船而言] 要成为抵达船舶,即是说,船舶在装/卸货准备就绪通知书可以递交的地方时,她必须是已经结束航程到达该指定的港口。
  

  《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)