CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime
Whether in port or not (WIPON) 无论进港与否
3.411 This phrase is frequently used in conjunction with the words ‘‘whether in berth or not’’ and the criteria for its use are broadly the same, of course, substituting port for berth.
3.412 A slightly unusual set of circumstances arose for consideration before London arbitrators arising out of delays caused by the convoy system in force at the time for vessels carrying cargo to Iranian ports. Under the particular charter, the vessel concerned was ordered to Bandar Bushire. To get there, she had to join a convoy at Bandar Abbas, where she arrived in September 1981. The master cabled notice of readiness and eventually the vessel joined a convoy in late November, arriving at her destination in early December. She berthed a few days later and completed discharge towards the end of December.
3.412曾经有一种稍微异常的背景情况被提交到伦敦仲裁裁决，那是关于两伊战争时期前往伊朗港口运货的船舶被强制护航而导致的延迟。根据那份特定的租船合同，船舶被指示前往Bandar Bushire港。为了到那里，该轮必须在Bandar Abbas加入护航编队。她于1981年9月到达Abbas锚地。船长通过无线电报递交了准备就绪通知书。最后于11月底加入护航编队并于12月初抵达目的地。在等了几天之后该轮靠泊卸货，直到12月底才卸完货。
3.413 The owners argued that their ship was an Arrived ship for Bandar Bushire, when she arrived at Bandar Abbas, although that was some 400 miles away. The owners submitted that, although their vessel was not then at the nominated discharge port, she was ready to discharge and fully at the disposal of the charterers. Thus, two out of three tests derived from The Johanna Oldendorff were satisﬁed. The third test, namely physical arrival, was, argued the owners, displaced by clause 22 of the charter, which stipulated that a notice of readiness could be tendered ‘‘whether in port or not’’. The owners argued that the WIPON stipulation operated in the very special circumstances extant at Iranian ports at that time to make valid cabled notices given by the master in September.
3.413 船东争辩称：他们的船舶到达了Bandar Abbas港就应该被视为是Bandar Bushire港的抵达船，尽管两者相距大约400多海里。船东认为，尽管他们船舶并不位于指定的卸货港，但该轮已经做好了卸货准备，并已完全处于承租人的支配之下了。因此，按照The Johanna Oldendorff案中的三个衡量标准，她已经满足了其中二个条件，该标准的第三项，即实际抵达，船东争辩说，它已被该租船合同的第22条款所替代，因为该条规定是‘不论进港与否’均可递交准备就绪通知书。船东还认为，针对伊朗港口当时比较特殊的背景，WIPON的规定起着非常重要的作用，是使船长在9月份用电报递交的准备就绪通知书是有效的。
3.414 The arbitrators, however, rejected these arguments, holding that the wait at Bandar Abbas could be regarded as an interruption to the voyage on which the vessel was engaged, a voyage which was only completed when the vessel arrived at the roads off Bandar Bushire. A place which was almost 400 miles distant from the port of destination could not possibly be held to be within the ambit of WIPON. If it were to be the only place at which a valid notice could be given, that could only be achieved by very clear and special wording in the charter. The convoy system was as much a hazard of the voyage falling to the owners’ account as any other navigational impediment that might arise. Furthermore, Bandar Abbas could not be considered the ‘‘usual waiting place’’ for Bandar Bushire.
3.414尽管如此，仲裁员还是驳回了上述这些观点，判定：船舶在Bandar Abbas港的等候期间只能被视为船舶进行的航程中的一次中断，只有她抵达了Bandar Bushire港外锚地，才能视为该航程的结束。一个距目的港几乎400多海里的地方不可能被认定为属于WIP0N的范畴。假如它是唯一的一个可以递交有效通知书的地方，那么就必须在租船合同中加以非常清楚和特定的词语进行说明。这种护航制度同其他可能产生的航行障碍一样，是一种航行危险，应由船东承担。另外，Bandar Abbas港也不能被视为是Bandar Bushire港的‘通常等候区域’。