CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
3.28 Difﬁcult questions of construction can sometimes arise as to whether the parties intended the charterer to have an express or an implied right to nominate the berth. In North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India Parker LJ decided that the words ‘‘one safe berth Dairen’’ expressly gave the charterer the right to name the loading berth, but went on to suggest that if the charter had said that the vessel was ‘‘to proceed to Dairen and then load at one safe berth’’, without adding ‘‘as ordered by the charterer’’, the right would have been implied so that the vessel would become an Arrived ship when she got within the port.
3.28有时，很难解释当事双方是否有意给予承租人明示或默示的指定泊位的权利。在 North River Freighters Ltd v. President of India —案中， Parker大法官判定‘大连的一个安全泊位’这一措辞明显是给予承租人选择装货泊位的权利，但是他接着又说，假如合同中已经规定该轮‘将驶往大连并在一个安全泊位装货’，而没加上‘由承租人指定’这句话，则这项指定权就属于默示的了，由此，船舶只要进入港区内即成为抵达船（注意此两种措辞的区别）。
3.29 Similarly, in Stag Line Ltd v. Board of Trade, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court that a clause providing that the vessel should ‘‘proceed to one or two safe ports East Canada or Newfoundland, place or places as ordered by charterers’’ was an express right to nominate the berth so that the charter was a berth charter.
3.29 同样地，在Stag Line Ltd v. Board of Trade—案中，上诉法院维持了下级法院的判决，即条款中规定该轮应‘驶往由承租人指定的东加拿大或纽芬兰的一个或两个安全港口或地方’是一个明示的指定泊位的权利，所以该租船合同是一个泊位租船合同。
3.30 In London Arbitration 1/09, the tribunal rejected that the charterers’ submission that the charter in question was a berth charter in respect of the load port where it provided for the vessel to load at:
1 SBP ZHENJIANG
taken in conjunction with clauses allowing the vessel to give notice of readiness at the roads, WIBON/WIPON/WCCON/WFPON, one providing for the vessel to have deemed to have arrived on anchoring at one of three anchorages, one providing how time should count after notice was given and one providing for shifting time not to count. Although the heading of this part of the report is: “Whether charter berth charter or port charter”, the tribunal, rightly in the author’s view, did not say it was a port charter. It is more accurately described as a berth charter with one or more provisions advancing the commencement of laytime. In The Merida the High Court, reversing the arbitral tribunal from which the appeal came, held that a provision providing for loading at “one good and safe chrts’ berth terminal 4” at Xingang was indeed a berth charter, despite a subsequent clause providing for loading at “one good and safe port/one good and safe charterers berth Xingang” and one excluding shifting time from the anchorage.
3.31 There are three exceptions to the general rule that a vessel is not an Arrived ship until she reaches the destination named in the charter or that subsequently selected by the charterer under an express right. These are (a) custom, (b) obstacles created by the charterer and (c) special provisions in the charter, and these will be considered later.