从伦敦仲裁案看期租合同下的验舱条款
日期:2018-12-30 阅读:1210


  【摘要】针对现实中碰到各种各样涉及到合同停租事项,本文简要分析该NYPE46合同格式中15条停租条款在实务中的运用及解释的基本原则,最后再列举关于期租合同下验舱条款重要的伦敦仲裁判例来谈谈所需要注意的地方。

  【关键词】停租、Net time lost、periodoff hire、损失

  一张白纸往往更容易更容易画出佳作;人也一样,空白开始学起,只要努力坚持,最后也一定会有收获。很多人习惯按先前形成的固有思维来行事,只有在发生问题的时候才会想起来原来事情并不如想象中的那样;很可能之前的观念都是错误的。

  前些天有人在群里咨询,有一程租合同明确规定,装港的港口使费出租人承担;但是承租人与发货人之间的合同是发货人承担装港的港口使费,即该港口使费已经包含在他们之间的贸易合同之中。出租人事后得知此事,要求代理退还港口使费,于是代理按要求退还,但承租人要求出租人退港口使费给承租人,出租人拒绝。承租人咨询协会律师,律师竟然支持出租人,声称不用退还。

  其实这问题非常简单,并没有想象中那么复杂,结果很多人搞不清楚,主张不用退还的占大多数。如果当事人都可以明目张胆地违反合约承诺,那么说再多都无济于事,因为没有遵守合同的概念。想要理直气壮地占便宜,一定要有充分的说服力。

  另有人咨询,承租人安排在锚地装货,结果因为船上压载水没有及时排空,导致少装1,000多吨货,发货人向该承租人索赔驳船费用,该承租人于是向出租人索赔亏舱费和驳船费用。但是出租人的保赔协会说这个根据海牙维斯比规则是属于船员管理船的疏忽,出租人是免责的,还举例说明了。承租人和代理提前通知过船长一定要按预配载的数量来装,但结果因为压载水问题,装不到预配的货量。承租人想知道有没有相关案例支持承租人的索赔,是否能找出租人索赔。

  关于船长配载的问题,如何避免被人索赔亏舱,之前文章也介绍过,不在本文重复。而关于该出租人的协会所举的例子,笔者之前也写过,The “Aquacharm”[1980] 2 Lloyd’sRep.237案。出租人的协会律师发了如下电邮给该承租人,承租人无法反驳。

  In the leadingcase of The Aquacharm [1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.237, where charterers had ordered the master to load as much cargo as possible so as to have sufficient draught to enable her to go through the Panama Canal. Upon arrival, the ship wasrefused entry into the Panama Canal because she had exceeded her permitteddraught. The ship was not off hire and charterers therefore made a claim fordamages. However, charterers’ claim for damages was defeated because the losswas found to have arisen from the neglect of the master in the management ofthe ship (which is an exception under the HV Rules). The court found that the neglect of the master but has excused the owners from liability.

  The Hague Visby Rules contain a list of exclusions of liability under Article IV rule 2.Article IV rule 2 of the HV Rules provides that: “Neither the carrier nor theship shall be responsible for loss or damage arising or resulting from...(a)act, neglect, or default of the master, mariner, pilot or the servants of the carrier in the navigation or in the management of the ship…”.

  这个案子,之前文章已经详细说明,The “Aquacharm”轮在Rotterdam交船后,便按承租人指示到美国的Baltimore装煤炭,计划过巴拿马运河到日本卸。该轮在Baltimore装了约43,000吨煤炭,于11月8日完货开航。但是当该轮抵达巴拿马运河的Cristobal时,巴拿马运河当局拒绝让该轮通过,原因是该轮超过了允许的最大吃水。经过相当长时间的考虑,最终决定将636吨煤炭卸另一艘名为Mini Lux的船中,后者随后跟着该轮一起通过运河,在Balboa再装船。转运的总成本,包括雇用Mini Lux的成本为71,470美元。此外,该轮延误了8天23小时45分钟。

  涉及的合同的主要条款如下:

  That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damage tohull, machinery, or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, orby any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost.

  本案主要是因为船长在配载的时候装多了货物,导致了在过巴拿马运河的时候因为船艏下沉导致了超吃水,被拒绝过运河。进而需要安排驳船减载,引起了关于停租及减载费用的争议。但商事法院的Lloyd法官及上诉院的Denning勋爵均认为The“ Aquacharm”轮完全能提供承租人所需要的减载的服务,船舶完全运作并没有被阻碍,因此承租人不得停租。此外,因为出租人可以凭借海牙规则的保护,对于因船长在管理船舶过程中因疏忽所造成的损失免责,承租人在这点上无权找出租人追偿损害赔偿。而关于减载驳运货物的费用,Denning勋爵认为是由于船长过失,装多了货物造成的;默示索赔权基于其真正的解释,并不包括因船长过失造成的转运费用,在这点上判出租人索赔转运费用不成立。

  表面上看,似乎无法反驳出租人。但实际上,情况并非如此。The “Aquacharm”轮案主要的合同条款和NYPE46的第15条,如下类似,仅仅说的是“deficiency of men”。

  NYPE46 Clause 15.

  That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in or breakdown of any part of herhull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra fuel consumed in consequence thereof, and all extra expenses shall be deducted from the hire.

  如由于船员或物料不足,船舶发生火灾,船体、船机或设备故障或损坏,船舶搁浅,因船舶或货物发生海损事故而延误,船舶为检验或油漆船底而进干船坞,或由于任何其他原因阻碍了船舶的充分工作,对于由此而造成的时间损失停止支付租金;如果船舶在航行时,由于船体、船机或设备任何部分的缺陷或故障而使航速下降,因此造成损失时间,以及任何因此额外消耗的燃料和任何额外费用,均应从租金中扣除。该停租条款为净时间损失条款,可以分为两部分,第一部分为有损失及阻碍中断了租家需要的服务,第二部分为由于机械方面的原因导致船舶航速油耗可扣除的情况。

  关于船员的问题,如果仅仅说是“deficiency”,那么是指人员不足,和船员意识无关,如Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos), (1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep.196案。这个上诉法院案子,笔者也详细介绍过,Ilissos轮以Baltimore租约格式,租给承租人,执行一个从澳大利亚的Newcastle装煤的航次期租航次。在1943年12月16日,船舶在Newcastle装完货后,因没有护航编队,船员于是选择拒绝开航。之后直到12月23日,虽然那个时候也还是没有护航编队,船员同意开航,但耽误了约6天7小时左右。

  承租人认为开航延误的时间是归于船员的问题,属于合同条款中的“deficiency of men”,因此可停租。出租人不同意扣租,提起仲裁。仲裁员,法庭及上诉院的法官一致判承租人无权停租。其中上诉院的Bucknill勋爵认为,deficiency of men的含义仅仅是deficiency of men,这并不意味着船员的工作意愿不够。高级船员和船员故意拒绝航行,除非加入编队,似乎没有任何“事故”因素。这不是一个意外事件,它绝不像任何其他列举的事件,这些事件都会导致船舶停租。Bucknill勋爵完全同意Sellers法官的这一点。Bucknill勋爵认为可能会这样说,如果船长,高级船员或者轮机员的行为导致船舶延误或无法使用,船舶被停租,但事实并非如此。船员已经在那里,只是他们不愿意工作而导致延误或损失。人们必须公平地看待这些文字,而不是将它们延伸到它们的意义之外。最终判承租人无权停租,上诉被驳回。

  但是如果合同是NYPE93的格式呢?情况显然不一样。NYPE93第17条的停租条款如下,关于船员部分的描述用了deficiencyand/or default and/or strike,船员不足和/或船员过失,船员罢工等造成的时间损失即可停租。

  NYPE93 Clause 17. 17 .Off. Hire

  In the event of loss time from deficiency and/or default and/or strike of officers or crew, or deficiency of stores , fire, breakdown of, or damages to hull,machinery or equipment,grounding, detention by the arrest of the Vessel ( unless such arrest is causedby events for which the Charterers, their servants, agents or subcontractorsare responsible), or detention by average accidents to the Vessel or cargounless resulting. from inherent vice, quality or defect of the cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any othersimilar cause preventing the full working of the Vessel , the payment of hireand overtime, if any, shall cease for the time thereby lost. Should the Vesseldeviate or put back during a voyage, contrary to the orders or directions ofher Charterers, for any reason other than accident to the cargo or whereper-mitted in lines 257 to 258 hereunder, the hire is to be suspended from thetime of her deviating or .putting back until she is again in the same orequidistant position from the destination and the voyage resumed therefrom. Allbunkers used by the Vessel while off hire shall be for the Owners' account. Inthe event of the Vessel being driven into port or to anchorage through stressof weather, trading to shallow harbors or to rivers or ports with bars, anydetention of the Vessel and/ or expenses resulting from such detention shall befor the Charterers' account. If upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defectin, or breakdown of, any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time solost, and the cost of any extra bunkers consumed in consequence thereof, andall extra proven expenses may be deducted from the hire.

  如果由于船员不足和/或船员过失,船员罢工,或物料不足,船舶发生火灾,船体,船机或设备发生故障或损害,船舶搁浅,船舶被扣押而延误(因承租人,其雇佣人员,代理人或分合同人应负责的事件被扣押时除外),或船舶或货物发生海损事故而延误(因货物的潜在瑕疵,质量或缺陷引起的除外),船舶为检验或漆底而入干船坞,或由于任何其他类似原因阻碍船舶的充分工作时,对因此所损失的时间停付租金和加班费(如有的话)。船舶在航行中,非由于货物发生事故或下述第257~~258行允许情况的任何其他原因,违反承租人的指示或命令,而发生绕航或返航,则从船舶绕航或返航之时起,至船舶再次驶回相同航向或距目的港等距离的地点时止,承租人停止支付租金,并且推定航次从那里开始。停租期间所使用的所有燃料由出租人承担。由于恶劣天气,船舶驶往浅水港或带有沙滩的河流或港口,船舶被迫驶入港口或锚泊时,所产生船舶的任何延误和/或由此延误所产生的费用由承租人负担。如果船舶在航行时,由于船体,船机或设备的任何部分的缺陷或故障而使船速下降,因此损失的时间,任何因此额外消耗的燃料费用和全部经证实的额外费用,可以从租金中扣减。

  很显然,船上有1,000多吨压载水排不出来,属于船员过失造成,承租人有权停租,如果有时间损失的话。笔者当时就建议,如果想索赔亏舱费或者驳船费的话,就直接和出租人说,让船上继续排。这种情况下,短时间内,受限于船舶的吃水差问题,压载水将很难再排出来。如果出租人不想赔偿亏舱费或驳船费的话,那么由于排压载水势必会造成时间损失,承租人有权停租。权衡之下,出租人会选择赔付亏舱费和驳船费,而不是继续排压载水被停租。

  如果连合同条款都不清楚,那拿什么去和人家理论?因此一旦发生争议,一定要先把合同条例仔细核对几遍。当然成熟的做法是,在执行任何航次之前,先把合同条款先熟读并牢记于心。如果是NYPE46格式,如果出现配载问题,出租人可以引援The“Aquacharm”[1980] 2 Lloyd’sRep.237案;如果船员不愿意过海盗危险区,可以引援Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport(The Ann Stathatos), (1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep. 196案。这两先例均为上诉法院案例,对于低级的法院有约束力。比如Bucknill勋爵认为“deficiency of crew”仅指人员数量上的不足;船员因为没有护航编队拒绝离港,属于船员的意识问题,并不赋予承租人停租的权力。同理,在之前文章,有说过在西非海盗区,或过海盗危险区的问题,出租人完全可以拿这个先例来对抗承租人的索赔。过不过这些有海盗危险的区域,是属于船员的意识问题,在NYPE46格式下,依据该先例,承租人无权停租。承租人如果不服,真正打官司,那么就算能过仲裁员一关,也过不了商事法院,甚至都没机会上诉到高等法院就已经被驳回了。如前所说,这些低级法院受其上级法院的约束。

  承租人可能感觉不公平,但这就是商事合同,如Sumption勋爵所说,商事合同可能最没公平性。承租人如果想要避免这一局面,那么就应该通过谈判,说服出租人采用NYPE93格式,那么有了“default”和“strike”这两措辞的保护,如果船员拒绝前往,那么可以主张船员罢工。同理,如果压载水排不出去,那么可以主张是船员过失造成,从而赋予承担人停租的权力,如果有时间损失的话。租约条款中的任何措辞都可能有特定的含义,绝非多余。

  如之前多篇涉及停租的文章所说,在解释这些停租条款的时候,有两大基本原则,第一,承租人负有举证责任,去证明在相关的环境下这些停租条款可适用。在期租合同下,延误基本上都是承租人的风险,承租人在任何情况下都有责任义务支付租金,除非是他能将他自己引入到这些停租条款中。第二,这些停租条款并不取决于出租人的违约与否。比如在The“Doric Pride”案中,该案是英国上诉法庭案例,上诉法庭判定期租租约下船舶第一次挂靠美国等待海岸警卫队安全检查应当停租。期租租约中停租条款表明由于船舶以及船东原因造成船舶被当局延误由船东负责,由于货物以及租家原因造成船舶被当局延误由租家负责。本案例中由于第一次挂靠美国,当局要求船舶等待并且检查的是船舶的情况,显然属于船舶原因,而美国也在租约规定的贸易区域范围内。

  近期市场上涉及很多问题燃油的争议,承租人提供了不符合船舶机器设备的燃油,结果导致了主机损坏。绝大部分人都认为这种情况,承租人无权停租出租人。但事实情况是,主机损坏属于停租条款中的机器设备的breakdown,承租人有权停租。但反过来,主机损坏是由于承租人违反合同,提供了不符规格的燃油造成的,出租人于是有权找承租人索赔损坏赔偿。在实务中,很多人认为这种情况承租人无权停租,其实这是错误的理解。出租人并未违约,但承租人有权停租;承租人有权停租,也并不妨碍出租人找承租人反索赔损害赔偿。

  如果解释是正确的话,那么不管从哪个角度出发,必然会指向一致,得出相同的结果。又如在The Ioanna [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 164案涉及交船的时候船舶污底,船舶无法达到合同约定的速度,从而导致航次时间变长,燃油消耗增多所引起的索赔问题。法官认为船舶存在缺陷,承租人可以引入到停租条款的第二部分,索赔损失,但仅限于净损失。这种情况和航速油耗索赔类似,但又不完全一样。

  如果在净时间损失的停租情况下,那么停租的有三大组成要素,第一,船舶完全运作受到阻碍;第二,这些阻碍是受到停租条款中列举的其中一个原因或者多个造成的;第三,这些原因或事件必须造成了时间损失。可参最新第7版《Time Charter》-Chapter 25-Offhire clause, 25.6:

  First, the full working of the ship must have been prevented;

  Second, it must have been prevented by one of the causes or events listed in the clause; and

  Third, there must have been a loss of time from that cause or event.

  只要船舶能够给承租人提供想要的服务,那么承租人就得连续支付租金;但是如果不能,给承租人造成了损失,那么承租人就可以停租。而关于所需要的服务,问题不在于承租人希望或预期他们的要求是什么,而是他们实际需要什么服务。如The “Berge Sund”[1993] 2 Lloyd’sRept.453案,是英国上诉法庭案例,期租合同下船舶没有通过货舱检验,仲裁庭裁定没有通过检验的原因应该是以前货物的影响,这种情况并非是出租人或者承租人的错误。上诉法庭判定船舶在没有通过检验之后需要的工作是进一步扫舱,扫舱是船舶正常营运的一部分,因此船舶不能停租。此外,停租条款的明示条文改变了承租人补偿出租人由于听从承租人命令造成的损失的默示条文,在承租人没有过错的情况下,只要符合停租条款的情况即可停租,而不用理会停租的原因是否是听从承租人命令造成的。

  如果租约中有任何模糊的地方,那么解释这类租船合同的最基本的原则是,出租人将需要为使用船舶而支付租金,除非其能将自己引入到例外条款。如Bucknill勋爵在Royal GreekGovernment v. Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos), (1948) 82 Ll.L.Rep.196案中在第199页判决书中,认为承租人必须清楚地能将自己引入到例外条款。如果对措辞有怀疑,那么这些措辞将作出对出租人有利的解释,因为承租人试图削减出租人享有租金的权利。

  The cardinal rule, if I may call it such, in interpreting such a charter-party as this, is that the charterer will pay hire for the use of the ship unless he can bring himself within the exceptions. I think he must bring himself clearly within the exceptions. If there is a doubt as to what the words mean, then I think those words must be read in favour of the owners because the charterer is attempting to cut down the owners' right to hire.

  同时,在期租合同下,如果不是出租人方面的原因所造成的延误,通常都是承租人的风险。当然如果是出租人的原因造成的,那么承租人就有权索赔损失。比如在The“Bridgestone MaruNo.3 ” [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 62案中,在之前航次,船舶已经装有增压泵装置,以便在船舶自身的泵不足以克服背压时协助卸货。之后在其中一个卸港靠泊后不久,当地官员及港口当局及船级社等机构上船就特别是增压泵及其安装方式进行检查。但是最终认为船舶不适合以安全的方式卸载货物,港口当局将船舶离开泊位,其货物未卸下。之后该轮停留在锚地,直到后来与另一承租人签订合同,装了另一批丁烷,才最终在其它港口一并卸下货物。承租人认为出租人违反合同,违反了租船合同的明示和/或隐含条款,即出租人将尽职尽责维持船舶等级,并且将为增压泵的安装方式寻求和获得船级社NKK的批准;出租人违反隐含的责任,即由于未能以安全和令人满意的方式安装电缆而未能及时安装泵,因此系统不安全且安装不当,安装方式不正确将泵永久固定在主甲板上。因此,出租人违反了租船合同中的明确条款,尽职尽责地维持船舶的各种服务。Hirst法官在第84页判决书中认为合同的第21条是期间停租条款,判承租人有权停租。

  In the event of loss of time . . . due to deficiency of . . . or any other cause preventing theefficient working of the vessel . . . hire shall cease to be due or payable from the commencement of such loss of time until the vessel is again ready and in an efficient state to resume her service . .

  Where Justice Hirst said at p84.

  Under a‘period’ off-hire clause of this kind, the ship goes off hire when the full working of the ship is first prevented and comes back on hire as soon as the full working of the ship starts again.

  In my judgment,this is essentially a period and not a loss of time clause. The Courts havealways leaned strongly in favour of construing these clauses in the formersense, to avoid the complexities of calculating minutiae of lost time under thelatter approach (see e.g. The H.R. Macmillan, [1974] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 311). Thepresent case is distinguishable from The Pythia since the clause here does notcontain the crucial words on which that decision turns, but, on the contrary,provides for hire to "cease to be due . . . from the commencement of suchloss in time until . . ." (my underlining), a formula which, in myjudgment, is apt to connote a period.

  如果在期租期间发生了可停租事项并且有时间损失,可停止支付由此造成的时间损失部分的租金。根据该条,承租人不仅要表明上述意义上的时间损失,而且还要显示其金额。这种条款允许承租人扣除相当于损失时间的租金,而不是在整个规定期限内,被称为“净损失时间”条款。比如The MarikaM [1981] 2Lloyd’s Rep. 622案,在该案中The Marika M轮于7月17日0415分抵达巴林锚地,本应该7月18日0920靠泊,但是在7月17日0909的时候搁浅了。直到7月27日才起浮,然后等泊,最终1976年8月6日1625才靠泊。承租人争辩说,该船在7月27日至8月6日期间停租,但出租人拒绝。Parker法官维持仲裁员裁定,起浮后承租人不得停租。

  第15条只涉及在停租原因阻止船舶完全运作期间的时间损失。由此得出:(i)只在该期间暂停支付租金的义务,并且一旦船舶的全部运作不再被阻止,出租人将再次开始赚取全额租金。(ii)在船舶完全工作恢复后发生的事情是无关紧要的-随后的延误,以及时间弥补都不会影响停租的计算。因此计算停租期间的时间损失可能不是一件容易的事。承租人想在净时间损失条款下找出租人索赔或者主张停租将非常困难。

  The Marika M [1981] 2Lloyd’s Rep. 622, clause 15 provides:

  15. That in the event of the loss of time from . . . grounding . . . orby any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel the payment ofhire shall cease for the time thereby lost . . .

  The vessel grounded and missed allocation of berth, Vessel refloatedbut had to wait for berth, Whether vessel off hire during that period. WhereParker J. said at p625.

  The clause has been considered in a number of cases which were referred to me but, rightly, itis pointed out that in some of them the question was not how much time was lostbut whether an off-hire event had occurred at all and those cases therefore arenot of any direct assistance. But running through them all, and I do not troubleto give their references, is a clear approach by the Courts to cl. 15 that itis intended to deal with periods during which the full working of the vessel isprevented and no further.

  It is true that the specific mention is there made of the word "detained" but what isperfectly clear is that the learned Judge is approaching the matter on thegeneral basis that hire only ceases to run while the vessel is prevented fromfull working. I do not regard the distinction sought to be made by Mr. Reynoldsas a distinction which enables me to come to any different conclusion to thatreached by the Court of Appeal in that case, which appears to all intents andpurposes to be binding on me. I reach the same conclusion as to the meaning ofthis clause which appears perfectly straightforward.

  这种净时间损失的条款下,承租人将赋予举证责任,除非能证明有实际时间损失,否则无权停租,哪怕是发生了合同中列明的可停租事项。比如在The “Berge Sund”[1993] 2 Lloyd’sRep.453案中(英国上诉法庭案例),期租合同下船舶没有通过货舱检验,仲裁庭裁定没有通过检验的原因应该是以前货物的影响,这种情况并非是出租人或者承租人的错误。上诉法庭判定船舶在没有通过检验之后需要的工作是进一步扫舱,扫舱是船舶正常营运的一部分,因此船舶不能停租。此外,停租条款的明示条文改变了承租人补偿出租人由于听从承租人命令造成的损失的默示条文,在承租人没有过错的情况下,只要符合停租条款的情况即可停租,而不用理会停租的原因是否是听从承租人命令造成的。

  Lord Staughton in The “Berge Sund”[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.453(C.A.) at p460:

  The arbitrators' test was thus one of hope or expectation. But even if that was tobe an objective test, I cannot believe that it was right. It is, as Aristotle said, probable that many improbable things will happen. The question is notwhat the charterers hoped or expected their orders would be, but what servicethey actually required.

  At p461, Lord Staughton said, In my opinion the critical question is,what was the service required of the vessel on Dec. 20, 1982? What were thecharterers’ orders? They were not to load cargo; as I have said, that was thelast thing that the charterers would have ordered, since the copper strip testhad been failed. The orders were, in part expressly and at all relevant timesby implication, to carry out further cleaning. That was the service required,and the vessel was fully fit to carry it out.”

  当然也有例外,如果违反了承租人指示,虽然表面上看并没有给承租人造成时间损失,但是承租人有权停租。比如The “Athena” [2013] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.673案。在该案中(上诉法院案),承租人安排该轮到俄罗斯的Novorossysk装小麦,到叙利亚的Lattakia或Tartous港卸。在该轮抵达Tartous港的时候,叙利亚当局在检验货物之后,声称货物受污染,因此禁止该载货物进口。事后仲裁庭认为,对于收货人而言,这是一种常见的策略,通常与叙利亚当局协调保持一致,拒绝接受货物,以便他们可以重新谈判货物买卖合同。

  最终无法协调,在2010年1月15日,承租人通知船长,卸货港改到到利比亚的Benghazi港。因叙利亚当局拒接货物退回装货港,因此在1月16日办理好叙利亚的离境手续之后,该轮离开Tartous港前往利比亚。

  在1月19日的时候,承租人发了如下电邮给船长,告之船长不得靠泊卸货及放货除非有他们的书面指示;可以同意收货人取样,抵达之后在Benghazi锚地抛锚等候进一步指示。

  在19日2338的时候,船长听从出租人的指示,在利比亚外的公海停车漂航。在第二天,承租人发电邮给船长,声称船舶没有遵从他们前往Benghazi锚地的指示,因此从那时候其直到该轮离开漂航位置前往Benghazi的期间停租。该轮与承租人的指示相反,继续在公海水域漂航,直到1月30日的2214才继续航行前往Benghazi卸港,总共延误了10.9416天。

  最终上诉法院的Tomlinson勋爵认为承租人有权停租。

  The “Athena” [2013] 2 Lloyd’sRep.673 case, per Lord Tomlinson at p682, where he said:

  The present case is complicated by the charterers' order forbidding berthing/discharging,but in the ordinary case a vessel drifting at sea without proceeding to theport during a period when the vessel would otherwise have been awaiting a berthwill have the result that the charterers are unable to start time running against their sub-charterers and the same will ordinarily be true as between sellers and purchasers. Seen in this light the judge's notion of the charterers gaining a windfall in the event that the vessel is off-hire during the driftingperiod is wholly illusory since the Master's arbitrary action has resulted int he upsetting of the normal allocation of the risk of delay.

  在这些涉及停租案件中,在每种情况下,承租人都必须证明船舶的全部工作已经被阻止。因此,必须首先询问船舶的全部工作是否已经受到阻碍。当船舶无法执行租约服务所需的下一次操作时,船舶将被视为无法提供所需要的服务。

  因此,如果船舶需要进行的下一次操作是驶向卸货港,但船舶无法这样做,则船舶无法完全运作。另一方面,如果情况是船舶无法起航,但是船舶所要求的下一次行动是停泊在泊位处,那么船舶的全部工作就没有被阻止,承租人就无权停租。可以参The TS Singapore[2009] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.54案,Burto法官所说:

  So if the next operation that the ship needs to undertake is to sail to the discharge port,but she is unable to do so, then the ship is being prevented from working. Onthe other hand, if the situation is that the ship is unable to sail, but thenext operation required of her is to remain at berth and discharge, the fullworking of the vessel has not been prevented.

  然而,如之前文章所说,先例不必然可以解释特定的租船合同;这些先例只有对类似合同条款的租约才有约束力。如果租船合同中约定了与这些先例不一致,甚至是完全相反的条款,那么解释起来将完全不一样。现在回到本文将重点介绍的,London Arbitration 24/16 (2016) 960 LMLN 2案。该案对于期租合同下,交船时候的验舱条款有着非常重要的指导意义。与Net time lost条款,需要同时满足三大要件:第一,船舶完全运作受到阻碍;第二,这些阻碍是受到停租条款中列举的其中一个原因或者多个造成的;第三,这些原因或事件必须造成了时间损失情况不同的是,在period off-hire条款下,承租人无需举证有时间损失也可以停租,甚至索赔其他直接相关的费用损失。

  在London Arbitration 24/16 (2016) 960 LMLN 2 案中,租约以带有附加条款的NPYE 46格式,执行一个TCT航次,租期约30天,不保证。为方便叙述,本案中的船东以下简称为“出租人”,租家称为“承租人”,船舶称为“该轮”。

  该轮于3月9日1218LT抵达第一装港,但并没有直接靠泊,因为没有泊位,预计3月14日才能靠泊。后来靠泊计划更新,按排队预计3月13日左右靠泊。3月9日1230LT左右开始验舱,但1345LT验舱不通过。船员继续备舱,最终于3月12日1145LT通过验舱。重新清舱时间大约用了70小时,因为验舱不通过,导致船舶需重新排队。按最初的靠泊计划,该轮排在A轮之后靠泊。但是由于该轮验舱不通过,导致B轮排在A轮之后,B轮于3月13日1600LT靠泊。在验舱通过后,该轮计划排在C轮之后靠泊,但第四条D轮在C轮之后靠泊。D轮于3月17日2215LT先靠泊,最终该轮按排队于3月19日0105LT才靠泊装货。

  出租人同意并接受验舱不通过,重新备舱到最终通过验舱的约70个小时,承租人可以停租。但是除此之外,随后的延误(从3月12日1145LT重新验舱通过)承租人无权停租;认为延误仅仅是由于港口压港引起的。

  承租人坚持认为,从3月9日到3月12日1145LT重新验舱通过期间停租;而且随后的延误,出租人也得赔偿给承租人,理由是由于出租人验舱不通过造成的。

  争议诉诸仲裁,出租人索赔租金尾款32,702.77美元。出租人主张验舱不通过的时间损失仅限于70小时;最终出租人将索赔额减少到27,625.69美元。

  其中合同主要条款如下:

  7. –Hold condition on arrival at 1st loading port to be clean…and ready to receive charterers’ intended cargo, all respects subject to the shippers surveyors’ inspection. If the vessel fails such survey, the vessel to be placed off-hire from time of the rejection until accepted in all holds, and any extradirectly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom to be for Owners’ account.

  出租人辩称,根据租船合同第7条,当事人已经同意了一个简单的停租条款,时间计算在验舱不通过时停止,并在通过重新检查后重新开始。此后损失的任何额外时间都是港口拥堵造成的直接损失,无论如何都是由承租人承担的风险。租约未能通过初步验舱检查,但租约第7条并未与此“直接相关”。出租人认为如果他们在那一点上错了,并且港口拥堵延误与货舱未通过检查“直接相关”,则时间损失从3月13日1600LT开始,当时船舶应该最初靠泊的时间,直到船舶D在3月17日的2215LT靠泊,总共102.25小时。

  The owners contended that, by clause 7 of the charterparty, the parties had agreed a simple period off-hire clause, by which time ceased at the timethe holds failed inspection and re-commenced upon their passing there-inspection. Any additional time lost thereafter was a loss arising directly from congestion in the port, which was a risk to be borne by the charterers inany event. It was not “directly related” in the terms of clause 7 of the charterparty to the failure of the holds to pass the initial inspection.

  If they were wrong on that point and the congestion delays were to beheld “directly related” to the holds failing inspection, then the time lost ran from 16.00 on 13 March, when the vessel should have berthed originally, until Vessel D berthed at 22.15 on 17 March – a period of 102.25 hours.

  出租人进一步表示,该期限应减少70小时的期间停租时间,从而限制承租人最多可享有这两个数字之间的差额,即32.25小时。

  承租人同意,在船舶货舱重新通过检查给他们造成的时间损失为102.25小时。但是,承租人坚持认为,虽然第7条包含有期间停租条款,但“any extra directly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom to be for Owners’ account”该措辞赋予承租人将等泊直到泊位可用所花费的时间直接从租金中扣除。承租人主张,如果一艘船在船舶排队中有一个位置,并且由于船舶的货舱未通过检查而丢失了该位置,然后在稍后的位置重新进入队列并随后靠泊,那么该延迟是由于这艘船货舱验舱不通过造成的,与港口拥堵毫无关系。承租人进一步争辩说,由于违反合同而失去了一个位置,这里船舶未能“准备就绪接收租船人的预定货物”-属于Hadley v Baxendale18549 Exch 341案的第一部分“such as may be fairly considered … as arising naturally, ieaccording to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself …”。因此,它被认为是船舶货舱未能通过检查的“直接相关”的后果。

  The charterers agreed that the time lost to them after the vessel’s holds had passed re-inspection was 102.25 hours. However, they maintained that whilst clause 7 contained a period off-hire provision, the words “and any extradirectly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom to be for Owners’ account”entitled them to deduct from hire the time the vessel spent after that periodended waiting for a berth to become available. They submitted that if a shiphad a slot in a berthing queue, and lost that slot because her holds failedtheir inspection and then re-entered the queue in a later position and berthedlater as a consequence, then that delay was caused by reason of the ship’sholds failing, and was nothing to do with congestion.

  The charterers further contended that the loss of a berthing slot by reason of a breach of contract – here the failure of the vessel to arrive“ready to receive Charterers’ intended cargo” – fell within the first limb of Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341 as a consequence “such as may be fairly considered … as arising naturally, ie according to the usual course of things,from such breach of contract itself …”. It was therefore to be considered as a“directly-related” consequence of the vessel’s holds failing inspection.

  出租人主张认为,在停租期结束后发生延误的索赔应减少停租的数小时,而承租人则认为“any extradirectly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom ”没有否定或取代停租条款。如果超过货舱清洁期间的时间丢失,他们只是在停租期间增加额外的东西,如本案所发生的那样。净租金损失没有任何不利条件补充一段时间的停租条款。根据“直接相关”条款损失的时间实际上是“额外的”,因为它并不与期间停租措辞下的停租重叠。因此,承租人全部拒绝了出租人的索赔并找出租人索赔费用。

  As regards the owners’ submission that the claim for delay occurring after the end of the off-hire period should be reduced by the number of hours of off-hire, the charterers argued that thewords “any extra directly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom” did not negateor replace the off-hire provision. They simply added something extra oradditional to the period off-hire provision, should time beyond the period ofhold cleaning be lost, as happened in the present case. There was nothing untoward in a net loss of hire provision supplementing a period off-hireprovision. The time lost under the “directly-related” provision was genuinely“extra” as it did not overlap with the off-hire under the period off-hirewording. Accordingly, the charterers denied the owners’ claim in its entirety and claimed their costs.

  出租人承认违反了船舶抵达时的保证条款,但认为该违约的自然后果是船舶进入等泊队列的延迟,这是期间停租的时间,已经在合同第7条中达成一致。此后的所有事情都必须是由港口拥堵波动引起的间接损失。靠泊排队的变化和拥堵状态与未能通过货舱通过检查并不“直接相关”。出租人进一步坚持他们的立场,即合同第7条中“额外”一词的自然含义以及与商业常识一致的含义是,它只涉及未经补偿的102.25小时延迟中的32.25小时,已经在期间停租措辞下补偿。承租人提议的第7条的解释将导致期间停租条款被归类为罚款,因此在法律上无法执行。

  The owners admitted a breach of the warranty as to the condition of the vessel’s holds on arrival but argued that thenatural consequence of that breach was a delay in the vessel being entered inthe berthing queue, which was the time for which period off-hire had beenagreed in clause 7. Everything thereafter had to be a consequential loss,arising from fluctuations in the congestion at the port. Changes in theberthing line up and the state of congestion were not “directly-related” to thefailure of the holds to pass inspection.

  The owners further maintained their position that the natural meaning of the word “extra” in clause 7 and the meaningconsonant with business common sense was that it related only to the 32.25hours out of the total 102.25 hours’ delay that had not been compensated forunder the period off-hire wording. The charterers’ proposed construction of clause 7 would result in the period off-hire provision being categorised as apenalty and, as such, legally unenforceable.

  出租人对承租人的费用索赔提出了额外的要点。出租人表示,无论仲裁结果如何,承租人的费用索赔都不会成功。为了使任何成本能够追偿,必须有一个先前存在且不可撤销的义务,即该方支付这些费用,在本案中并不存在。承租人是辩护协会的成员,并且会支付保险费,期望他们的法律费用由协会承担,而不是由他们自己承担。虽然协会的董事有酌情权要求会员向协会支付所提供的法律服务,但并无证据显示董事已行使该等酌情权。承租人随后提供了证据,证明该协会的一名经理行使了董事的酌处权,并已委托给经理,并已通知承租人他们将被要求支付协会在本案中的法律服务。

  The owners raised an additional point inregard to the charterers’ claim for costs. The owners said that irrespective ofthe outcome of the arbitration, the charterers’ claim for costs could not succeed.In order to make any recovery of costs there had to be a pre-existing andirrevocable obligation for the party to pay such costs. That did not exist inthe present case. The charterers were members of a Defence Association andwould have paid premiums in the expectation that their legal costs would beborne by the Association rather than by themselves. Whilst the directors of the Association had a discretion to require the member to pay the Association forlegal services provided, there was no evidence that the directors had exercisedsuch discretion.

  The charterers subsequently provided evidence that a manager of the Association had exercised the directors’ discretion,which had been delegated to the managers, and had notified the charterers thatthey would be required to pay for the Association’s legal services in the present case.

  承租人因此依据该条款,主张从9日1245到12日1245共70个小时停租,并索赔额外的损失,从13日1600到17日2215共102.25小时。

  仲裁庭认为该条款可分为三部分,(1)抵达时货舱清洁的保证性条款,(2)期间停租条款,及(3)额外的直接相关费用条款。

  Held, that the outcome of the arbitration depended on the proper construction of clause 7 of the charterparty. The clause could be conveniently divided into three parts,namely: (1) the clean holds on arrival warranty; (2) the period off-hireclause; and (3) the additional “directly-related” costs provision.

  

  仲裁庭认为没有任何理由不按照其措辞解释这些条款,并落实这些措辞的含义。至于保证,其措辞很明确,出租人承认他们违反了保证条款。

  At the outset, the tribunal could not see any reason not to interpret each of those provisions in accordance with its wordings and to give effect to the meaning ofthose wordings.

  As for the warranty, its wording was clear and the owners had admitted their breach of it.

  

  仲裁庭认为关于期间停租的规定,其含义也很明确,即船舶在未能通过验舱检查期间开始,并在船舶货舱被接受为干净时结束。在这样的规定中没有任何不寻常或不合适的事情;它规定了如何根据租金条款来计算违反该保证,并避免调查承租人是否因清洁而实际遭受时间损失。

  As forthe period off-hire provision, its meaning was also clear, namely that the vessel was to be off-hire for the period commencing at the time she failed inspection and ending at the time she was accepted as clean. There was nothing unusual or unbusiness like in such a provision; it set out how breach of the warranty was to be calculated in terms of hire, and avoided the need to investigate whether or not the charterers actually suffered a loss of time as aresult of the cleaning.

  

  仲裁庭认为至于额外的“直接相关”费用规定,它的含义也很明确,从商业角度来看也没有争议。这意味着如果由于违反保证条款,承租人确实在成本和费用或时间方面遭受了“损失”,那么出租人应对该损失负责-只要这种损失是和违反保证条款“直接相关的”。

  As forthe additional “directly-related” costs provision, that, too, was clear in its meaning and was uncontroversial from a commercial point of view. It meant thatif, in consequence of the breach of warranty, the charterers did indeed suffer loss “therefrom” in terms of costs and expenses or time, then the owners wereto be responsible for that loss – provided such loss was “directly-related” tothe breach of warranty.

  

  仲裁庭认为当然,违反此类保证可能会导致靠泊延误。它并不总是会出现这种情景,它取决于当时港口的实际情况,出租人无法控制;但如果它确实发生了,那么出租人必须承担这个风险-如果靠泊的延迟与违规行为是“直接相关”的。仲裁庭认为在本案中,至少在3月17日2215LT之间靠泊的延误与船舶在3月12日货舱接受后必须重新进入等泊排队直接相关。换句话说,除了延迟进入等泊排队之外,该轮没有理由延迟靠泊。

  It was certainly possible that a breach of warranty of that type would give rise to delay in berthing. It would not always do so; it depended on the actual situation in the port at that time, over which the owners had no control; butif it did do so, then the owners had to take the risk of that – provided the delay in berthing was “directly-related” to the breach.

  In the present case, the delay in berthing, at least until 22.15 on 17 March, was directly related to the vessel having to re-enter the queue for berthing onceher holds had been accepted on 12 March. In other words, there was no reason for her delay in berthing other than her delayed entry into the berthing queue.

  

  一旦仲裁庭认为出租人应对所发生的额外102.25小时的延误负责,无论是根据第7条的措辞还是更一般地说,为什么出租人依据停租条款有权因时间损失而有权减免该责任?停租条款和额外的“直接相关”费用条款是单独的条款,涉及不同的时间段和情况,每一条都应按照其措辞加以解释,而无需相互参照。违反保证条款会导致花在清洁上的时间,以及因此等待靠泊所花费的时间。没有理由认为后期应该在较早的时期打折扣。仲裁庭认为“额外”这个词另外指出了一些东西,而不是一个抵消或净结果。

  Once the tribunal had held that the owners were responsible for the additional 102.25hours’ delay incurred, there was no reason, either on the wording of clause 7 or more generally, why the owners should be entitled to discount that liabilityby the loss of time under the off-hire clause. The off-hire provision and theadditional “directly-related” costs provision were separate provisions,addressing different periods of time and circumstances, and each should be interpreted in accordance with its wording, without the need forcross-reference. The breach of warranty gave rise to time spent in cleaning and, as a result, time spent in waiting for a berth. There was no reason whythe later period of time should be discounted by the earlier period. The word“extra” pointed to something in addition, not to a set-off or net result.

  

  因此,仲裁庭裁定出租人对租金余额的索赔失败,除停租期为70小时外,承租人还有权要求赔偿船舶在重新进入等泊排队后等待靠泊的额外102.25小时。这种补偿采取了适当的形式,即在那段时间内免除了承租人支付租金的义务。

  Accordingly,the owners’ claim for the balance of hire failed and the charterers were entitled, in addition to the off-hire period of 70 hours, to compensation forthe additional 102.25 hours that the vessel spent in waiting for her berthafter her re-entry into the berthing queue. That compensation took theappropriate form of being relieved of the obligation to pay hire for that time.

  因此,仲裁庭必须解决这样的问题,即承租人是否有权追偿其费用,即使承租人已经加入了辩护协会。仲裁庭对证据表明协会通过其管理人员行使酌处权要求其成员(在本案例中为承租人)向协会支付其雇用的律师提供的法律服务,以及承租人在这方面对协会有义务所支付的费用。最终仲裁庭裁定承租人有权从出租人那里追偿他们所提到的费用,出租人的索赔完全失败。

  The tribunal accordingly had to address the issue whether the charterers were, despite theirentry in a Defence Association, entitled to recover their costs. The tribunalwas satisfied on the evidence that the Association, through its managers, didexercise the discretion to require its member, in this case the charterers, topay the Association for the legal services rendered by the lawyers it employedand that the charterers were therefore under an obligation in that regard to the Association. Accordingly, the charterers were entitled to recover from the owners their costs in the reference.

  The owners’claim failed in its entirety.

  总结:

  笔者之前也帮人处理过与London Arbitration 24/16 (2016) 960 LMLN 2案中所涉及的验舱条款如下,一致的交船验舱条款。

  Hold condition on arrival at 1st loading port to be clean…and ready toreceive charterers’ intended cargo, all respects subject to the shippers surveyors’ inspection. If the vessel fails such survey, the vessel to be placed off-hire from time of the rejection until accepted in all holds, and any extra directly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom to be for Owners’ account.

  出租人与承租人ADMI之间的合同的验舱条款与这个仲裁判例一字不差,这只能说明一个问题,ADMI的法务注意到这个仲裁判例,或者说这个仲裁案中的承租人就是他们自己。船舶抵港后承租人安排验舱,不过。之后靠泊后再次验舱通过。承租人初始主张停租,当时笔者以没有净时间损失为由反驳,最终他们放弃索赔。承租人放弃索赔,并不能说该条款对于出租人而言就是没有问题的条款,相反,背后所涉及的陷阱出租人不容忽视。

  其实在该条款下,承租人完全可以无视是否有净时间损失,因为这属于期间停租条款。如果验舱不通过导致别的船先靠,就算在锚地验舱通过,承租人也可以狮子大开口,主张后续的延误继续停租。承租人与其下家是否能继续计算laytime,收取滞期费和承租人主张停租完全没关系。因为,延误造成了需要支付额外的租金,而这些额外的租金就是直接相关的费用,承租人可以索赔。

  在订约自由的前提下,如LondonArbitration 24/16 (2016) 960 LMLN 2仲裁案中的第7条:

  7. –Hold condition on arrival at 1st loading port to be clean…and ready to receive charterers’ intended cargo, all respects subject to the shippers surveyors’ inspection. If the vessel fails such survey, the vessel to be placedoff-hire from time of the rejection until accepted in all holds, and any extra directly-related costs/expenses/time therefrom to be for Owners’ account.

  仲裁庭认为该条款可分为三部分,(1)抵达时货舱清洁的保证性条款,(2)期间停租条款,及(3)额外的直接相关费用条款。法官没有任何理由去偏离合约措辞的字面解释。

  反复说明该条款,旨在引起出租人足够的重视。可能在执行过程中并没有发生问题,就算验舱不通过了,承租人也仅仅是按净时间损失条款来对待。但是万一压港严重的话,一旦验舱不通过,导致长时间的延误,也许某一天有精明的承租人来主张所有延误时间停租,并且索赔所有直接相关的费用。在现有的仲裁判例面前,出租人将几乎不可能全身而退。

  因此该类验舱条款最好修改为如下,以免扩大船东风险。

  Owners and their crews will try their best tomake holds clean, dry, free of rust and in all respects, suitable to loadcharterers’ intended cargo. But if may fail hold inspection, The charterers areentitled to place the vessel off hire from fail inspection until final pass sub to if any time lost thereby which will be for Owners’ account.

  这样出租人就可以避免出现违反保证性条款的风险,及把停租限制在net loss of time clause,避免出现 period off hire clause的情况。如果是在净时间损失的条款下,承租人想停租,那么有以下三点需承租人举证:

  1. 船舶完全运作的情况受到阻碍

  2. 这些阻碍是受到停租条款中列举其中一个原因或者多个造成的

  3. 承租人有实际的时间损失

  很多时候,虽然发生了可停租事项,但并没有给承租人造成实际上的时间损失,因此承租人依然无权停租。

  商场如战场,租约谈判是个不断博弈的过程。然而,作为普通法一般原则的订约自由,很大程度上获得了众多法官的支持。比如在Suisse Atlantique Soci´et´e d’Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale [1967] 1 A.C. 361案中,Reid勋爵拒绝了这样一种观点,即基本违约原则是一种实质性的法治,否定任何相反的协议(并且能够用来打击豁免条款),除其他外这将限制“英国法律的一般原则,即当事人可以自用地签订合同只要认为合适。”。在商业环境中,这种观点支持仍然特别强大。比如在Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport Ltd [1980] A.C. 827 案中,同一背景下,Diplcok勋爵在第848页判决书中说到:普通法的基本原则是合同的当事人可以自由决定他们将接受的主要义务。

  在Homburg Houtimport B.V. v Agrosin Private Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12案中,贵族院的Bingham of Cornhill勋爵表示,法律政策有利于促进国际贸易, 商业人士必须获得订约的最大自由。此外,英国法院已经证明不愿仅仅因为其中一方遭受“讨价还价的不平等”而在打击合同。相反,贵族法院认为它不会增加双方当事人的协议,比如通过默示的一个条款仅仅因为这样做是合理的。只有在必要的情况下,或者有两种或以上的解释时,法院才会采纳较为符合商业合理性的解释,否则会遵循合约本身自然,措辞的字面解释。这种解释很好理解,如果当事人不同意,那么很容易反问,不同意,当初为何写入合同?这方面的可以参考权威书籍《Chitty on Contracts》1-029.

  此外,Hoffmann勋爵在Attorney General of Belizev Belize Telecom Ltd[2009] UKPC 10案中说到如下:

  The court has no power to improve upon the instrumentwhich it is called upon to construe, whether it be a contract, a statute or articlesof association. It cannot introduce terms to make it fairer or more reasonable.It is concerned only to discover what the instrument means . . . It is the meaning which the instrument would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would be reasonably be available to the audience to whom the instrument is addressed.

  法院没有权力改进所要求的文书,无论是合同还是法规;法院不能引入条文以使其更公平或更合理。

  Sumption勋爵在2017年5月8日受邀在牛津大学Keble学院的哈里斯协会年度报告中中发表了题目为A Question of Taste: The Supreme Court and the Interpretation of Contracts》的演讲,其中说到:

  Lord Neuberger, delivering the leadingjudgment, set out a number of principles which reasserted some traditionalorthodoxies from earlier case-law. These included the primacy of language inthe interpretation of contracts. He also pointed out the danger ofretrospectively applying a notion of commercial common sense influenced by whathad gone wrong after the contract was made. In Krys v KBC Partners [2015] UKPC 46, a majority of the PrivyCouncil declined to depart from the natural meaning of the language simplybecause the result might be regarded as one-sided or unfair, and suggested that in the face of sufficiently clear language even an absurd result might have to be accepted.

  如果只是因为结果可能片面或不公平,枢密院的大多数法官都拒绝违背该语言的自然含义;并认为,面对足够清晰的语言,纵然结果是荒谬的也将不得不被接受。

  因此,如果交船验舱条款和London Arbitration 24/16 (2016) 960 LMLN 2案中的措辞一样,那么必然会被裁定认为措辞足够清晰明确,出租人将得接受后果,不管该结果是否荒谬,这和公平公正无关。

  修改完成于2018.12.28

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)
海运圈聚焦客户端
扫描下载
聚焦海运圈资讯