精彩海运视频，极具深度的专栏文章和海量的市场分析报告，以及指数、油价和气象信息

　　《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

　　Readiness and readiness做好准备和准备就绪

　　3.340 Many of the cases previously considered, particularly those relating to physical readiness, arose in relation to a cancellation clause rather than notice of readiness to load. In both cases, similar considerations arise. The principal distinction, however, appears to be that unless the charter provides to the contrary, no notice of readiness need be given at the ﬁrst load port to prevent the charterer from cancelling the charter. All that is required is that the vessel has arrived at her speciﬁed destination and is in all respects ready to load, whereas for laytime to commence, notice must normally be given as well.

　　3.340上文已经探讨的许多案例，尤其是有关实质上准备就绪的，往往同解约（销约期）条款而不是装货准备就绪条款有关。这两种情况所考虑的因素比较相似。不过，主要区别似乎在于：除非租船合同中有相反的规定，必须在第一个装货港提交准备就绪通知书是不能阻止承租人解除合同。船舶全部所要做的，就是要求抵达指定的目的地，并在各方面准备就绪，而为了要起算装卸时间，通常还必须递交通知书。

　　3.341 The leading case on the distinction is A/B Nordiska Lloyd v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd, a decision of the Court of Appeal. This concerned a ship called the Gevalia, which was ordered to Hull to load on a berth charter. Time was to count when written notice of readiness was received in business hours.

　　3.341关于这一区别的典型案例就是上诉法院所判的A/B Nordiska Lloyd v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd案。在该案中涉及的Gevalia 轮根据泊位租船合同被指示前往英国赫尔港装货。装卸时间从办公时间内收到书面形式的准备就绪通知书时起算。

　　3.342 Other clauses of the charter provided:

　　7. If steamer be prevented from entering... docks or from arriving at or off loading place by reason of congestion... she is to be treated as a ready steamer from ﬁrst high water on or after arrival... and entitled there-upon to give written Notice of Readiness...

　　11. . . . charterers to have the option of cancelling this charter . . . if she is not ready from any cause on or before Apr. 3 at 6 am.

　　3.342租船合同中另有条款规定：

　　7．如果由于拥挤而使船舶不能驶入……码头或者抵达装货地点或者靠近装货地点，那么，当第一个高潮来临时或者抵达后，该轮就被视为抵达船……并且这时她有权递交书面的准备就绪通知书……

　　11．……如果该轮由于任何原因而未能在4月3日的上午6点或这之前准备就绪，承租人就有权解除该租船合同。

　　3.343 The Gevalia arrived off Hull on Easter Saturday, which was 31 March, but owing to congestion was unable to enter the docks. The earliest she could have given notice under clause 7 was the start of business on 3 April since the previous day was Easter Monday and therefore a bank holiday. That was after the charterers’ right to cancel had arisen, a right they sought to exercise. However, the Court of Appeal held they were wrong; the test was the actual readiness of the ship. Under this charter notice of readiness was irrelevant to cancellation. As Scrutton LJ said:

　　In my view, if the charterers wished to put an additional provision into the (cancellation) clause as to giving notice they must say so.

　　Atkin LJ put it this way:

　　It is necessary to distinguish between the obligation on the charterers and the right of the charterers to cancel the contract.

　　I see no reason to assume that the giving of a Notice of Readiness is a condition precedent to the charterers’ right to put the contract at an end. In the cancelling clause there is no express provision that Notice of Readiness must be given. All that is provided is that if the ship is not ready from any cause on or before Apr. 3 the charterers have the option to cancel. In clause 7 it is said that the ship is to be treated as ready even if she is prevented from entering the harbour by congestion or other cause and Notice of Readiness may then be given, but that does not apply to the cancelling clause.

　　3.343船舶Gevalia轮于3月31日即复活节的星期六抵达了赫尔港外，但由于港口拥挤不能进入码头。根据第7条的规定，该轮最早能递交通知书的时间是营业开始日——4月3日，因为在这之前的一天是复活节的星期一（4月2日），所以也是银行的假日。这已是在承租人的解约权产生之后了，他们也声称拥有这一销约的权利。不过，上诉法院判定这种说法是错误的，因为衡量标准指的是船舶的实际准备就绪。按照这份租船合同的规定，准备就绪通知书同解约无关。正像Scrutton大法官所说的那样：

　　依我之见，承租人若想将递交通知书这一额外要求并入(解约）条款之中，他们必须明确地写出来才行。

　　Atkin大法官是这样看待这一问题的：

　　有必要将承租人的义务同承租人的解除合同权利区分开来。

　　我认为没有理由假设准备就绪通知书的递交作为承租人终止合同权利的前提条件。因为在解约条款中，并没有明示条文要求必须递交准备就绪通知书。所规定的全部内容是：如果船舶不论任何理由不能在4月3日或这之前做好准备，承租人就有权选择解约。第7条款中所说的是，即使是由于港口拥挤或其他原因导致船舶进港靠泊受阻，该轮一样可以被视为已经准备就绪，而且这时亦可递交准备就绪通知书，但是这并不适用于解约条款。
　　