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

【摘要】在航运实务中，如果船长在明知道货物状况或数量有问题，或者提单的日期与实际不一致的情况下，仍然选择了签发而没有任何抗议，那么往往这种情况下，将严重影响船东的权益，轻则无法找租家索赔损失，重则构成欺诈侵权。本文结合实际中发生的提单倒签的情况，来说说这类虚假陈述涉及到侵权欺诈的问题。

【关键词】提单、欺诈、错误陈述、Fraud

在航运市场不景气的情况下，想要增收创效，合同条款就显得异常重要。近期就碰到NOR递交无效的情况，合同里规定，如果泊位被占，那么NOR可以在锚地递交。结果船到了锚地就递交NOR，但递交的时候泊位空着，因此这个时候提交的NOR无效。抵达的时候也因为大雾封港，船舶并不能直接靠泊，最后导致了时间损失。如之前文章说过的，NOR有两个目的，一是通知对方准备就绪了可以开始装卸货；二是要开始计算Laytime。当然前提是递交的NOR有效，如果没有有效的NOR，laytime不会自动开始起算，就算开始装卸货也不会开始起算。但为了友好合作关系，同意开始卸货的时候可以起算laytime，船东于是很快接受等泊时间扣除不算laytime，避免整个时间都不算的不利局面。

在另一方面，那就是尽量别犯错误，避免无谓的损失。然而事情很多时候很难预料，尤其是在现场发生的情况无法第一时间知道的情况下，很难去把控局面。每个船长的业务能力水平也不一样，也可能实在太忙而忽略了一些重要的信息，比如忘记核对SOF上装卸货及非正常停工时间，被添加了不利的备注；提单日期写错了而没有发现等等，这些都可能给船长造成不利局面。

这种提单日期出错，在代理已经签发了对应的提单的情况下，船东是否有权利要求签发的提单作废而重新再签发新的提单呢？本文从F轮在2016年某航次的遭遇开始说起。

船东在2016年3月份将F轮以带有附加条款的NYPE46的租约格式租给租家，去执行一个从乌克兰装小麦到地中海港口卸的航次任务。该轮在Nikolayev装完货后(该港及航道有水尺限制)，到Ochakiv 锚地继续装货，最终于2016年4月3日完货。船方做的水尺数货量约54,750吨，而岸方提供的数据约为55,000吨，船方水尺数与岸方提供的数据不一致，差异约250吨。船长在大副收据上作了批注，双方对此争议僵持不下，最后租家要求船长以岸方数据为准签相关货物单据，指示船长尽快开航。

鉴于此，发了如下邮件给租家。主要内容包含有三个方面，一是船长听从了租家的指示而开航；二是船长已经在大副收据上作了批注；三是如果没有船东书面确认，任何清洁提单都是非法和无效的。

Trust the charterers safe receipt below and attachment from the Master.

And the Master follow the charterers' instruction, sail from load port now.

For avoid any misunderstanding, Owners hereby repeat that total cargo qtty loaded onboard should be basis draft survey, abt 54,750mts; but not the shore weightfigure.

Meanwhile,original B/L only could be issued in conformity with Mate's receipt strictly. Please be noted that the Master already claused the Mate's receipt.

Any cleanB/L if was issued without Owners' written confirmation will be deemed as illegal, VOID&NULL.

Charterers please be guided accordingly. Thanks.

通常情况下，租家代理在收到船长的授权书后，如果租家没有要求他们代理修改的话，一般会听租家的指示签发相应的提单。在得知清洁被签发后，接着发了如下邮件给租家，先声明租金违约，违反了租约签发了与大副收据不一致的提单，并保留权利。

Further to Owners' message date 3rd/Apr, Owners note that clean original Bs/L were issued already.

As Owners clarify earlier, there was cargo qtty discrepancy between shore weight figure and draft survey, the Master clause the Mate'sreceipt; but Charterers' agent issue clean Bs/L without any remark.

It's no doubt that the charterers in breach of charter partyclause 91, without Owners' confirmation to issue clean Bs/L which are not conformity with Mate's receipt.

In order to resolve this problem, The charterers are called upon to settle any cargo shortage claim at discharge ports from their side directly.

Owners/Master will not hold any responsible for any shortage/damages which result from the charterers' breach.

关于此点，在期租合同里并入对应的条款显得非常重要；如NYPE93格式的第30条(b)，如下，所有提单或运单不应与本租船合同有抵触，对由于承租人签发的或经其要求由船长签发的提单或海运单与本租船合同之间的任何不一致可能造成的所有后果或责任，由承租人赔偿给出租人。该条款是对船东有利的保护性条款。

(b) All bills of lading or waybills shall be without prejudice to this Charter Party and the Charterers shall indemnify the Owners against all consequences or liabilities which may arise from any inconsistency between this Charter Party and any bills of lading or waybills signed by the Charterers or by the Master at their request.

第二天船东突然发现，所有提单签发日期都是3月31日；而事实情况下，有一部分货在4月3日才装完，因此此部分的货物对应的提单涉及倒签，提单为倒签提单（Backdated B/L or Ante-dated B/L）。发现此问题后，马上给租家发了如下电邮，声明部分货物对应提单为倒签提单，要求租家指示代理取消该提单，并将正本作废后邮寄给船东，然后再重新签发。并在该电邮中澄清，船长因为把注意力都放在货量差异上，没有注意到提单日期的问题。这点很重要，不是船长注意到提单日期有问题了，还选择签发，如果是这样，如前篇文章所说的，将导致船东丧失默示索赔权及构成欺诈。

Refer to Charterers’ last, Owners wish to point out that the Master focused his attention to the cargo qtty discrepancy, for the BL issued date should be for his oversight.

This does not have effect that the charterers could issue backdated Bs/L without Owners’consent.

Refer to SOF, It’s clear and no doubt that time of complete loading operation was on 3rd/Apr2016 at Ochakov roads, NOT 31st/Mar 2016.

Hence that the charterers please instruct their agent to cancel those backdated Bs/L.

Please courier all sets of Bs/L after mark “NULL& VOID” to Owners’ below office:

….

Owners will let charterers note immediately once safe receipt those Bs/L in hand, and the charterers and or their agent could re-issue Bs/L by then.

Owners are awaiting for the charterers’ further comments if any.

最终其中一套提单作废，租家又重新签发了关于货物在4月3日完货的新的提单，如下。

接下来说说常见的涉及到提单欺诈的几个方面，提单日期、货量及质量。

一、提单日期有误

像FK轮这种情况下，提单日期写错了，在提单签发后，船东有没有权利要求租家作废已签发的提单，然后重新再签发新的提单？

在The“Wilomi Tanana”案中，船东以Shellvoy 5的租约格式派Wilomi Tanana轮去执行租家的一个从西非装原油到欧洲卸的航次任务。该轮在1993年1月18日抵达加蓬的Oguendjo泊位，于1月20日0110完货，总共装了约900,000桶原油，整票货并没有物理分隔。整票货拆分成了7份提单，船长在完货后签发了，但没有注意到提单日期是1月19日，也没有递交抗议书。该轮最终在2月8日抵法国的Le Havre卸港。

因为买卖合同与市场价格挂钩，价格以提单日期后5天的市场价结算；基于1月下旬价格波动，1月19日与20日之间，总共价值差了250,000美金。

合同第33条规定如下，租家能够指示船长签发提单任何合法的提单。

33.(1) Subject to the provisions of thisclause charterers may require the master to sign lawful bills of lading for anycargo in such form as charterers direct . . .

在离开装港后，很快当事人对于提单的日期提出异议，争议的主要焦点问题是，在程租合同下，由于提单日期错误，船东是否有权修改或者重新签发提单。

商事法庭的Hobhouse法官认为，船长在提单日期上搞错了，这是基本常识，他应该坚持日期为1月20日；提单日期早于货物实际装船的日期，这对于船长来说是不合适的，因此提单日期需为1月20日。

It was common ground that the master was in error regarding the dating of the bills and should have insisted upon dating them Jan. 20; it was not proper for the master to date a bill earlier than that by which all the cargo referred to in the bill of lading had been shipped; the bills of lading should have been dated Jan. 20.

在合同33条下租家并没有权利给予船东这样的命令，如果在提单签发之前必须给予的指示；现在不是租家说他们需要一份不同形式的提单用来签发的时候。租家不能禁止船东修改日期错误的提单，也就是说船东有权利修改已经签发提单的日期；同时只要与租约相符或与租家给予的指示一致船东有权重新签发提单。

The charterers did not have the right under cl. 33 to give orders to the owners; the direction, if it was to be given had to be given before the bill of lading had been signed and issued; it was not now open to the charterers to say that they required a different form of bill of lading to that issued.

The charterers could not forbid the owners to correct the erroneous dates of the bills of lading provided that the owners did not go so far as to issue fresh bills of lading and to do so in a form that was inconsistent with the charter or instructions that had been given by the charterers; the owners were at liberty to correct the dates of the existing bills.

此类倒签提单的问题，也可以参阅The“Lalazar”及The“Hunza”案，上诉院的Evans勋爵说，倒签和伪造提单在国际贸易中是一种癌症，一份提单的签发，在国际贸易中是为了使参与交易的当事人各方，收货人，银行背书人能够依赖并在他们手里正确流转。当银行收到一份由船东或其代理所签发的提单（作为开具信用证的一份文件单据），并依赖此提单的准确性和真实性。最诚实的商业交易要求签发该提单并流转的人，当他这么做的时候，如他所知，需反映真实情况。

Antedated and false bills of lading are acancer in international trade. A bill of lading is issued in international trade with the purpose that it should be relied upon by those into whose hands it properly comes - consignees, bankers and endorsees. A bank, which receives a bill of lading signed by or on behalf of a ship owner (as one of the documents presented under a letter of credit), relies upon the veracity and authenticity of the bill. Honest commerce requires that those who put bills of lading into circulation do so only where the bill of lading, as far as they know,represents the true facts.

此类提单日期不能真实反映实际装船日期的提单都不可接受，船长在办理完货离港手续的时候，一定要注意相关单据的日期问题；如果有疑问，应该先拒签，找租家或船东核对清楚。如果是租家单方面要求，千万不可听信一面之词，比如提供保函作为交换而签发虚假陈述的提单。

如果万一船长现场不小心签发了日期错误的提单，船东发现后得立即要求租家或代理撤回此提单，作废后再重新签发新的提单。很显然，为了避免市场上有不同的提单在流通，船东一定要在收齐作废的全套提单后才可以同意租家或代理再签第二套提单。

二、货物货量不一致

实务中，船长基本上都会知道，货量不足的话，到时候在卸港有麻烦，比如面对收货人的短货索赔。如果出现货量差异，船长有权拒签此清洁提单。如在The “Boukadoura”案，Evans法官判，如果提单不能准确反映实际已装船的数量船长有权拒签不合格的提单；船东有权利索赔延误造成的损失。

The master was entitled to refuse to sign an unqualified bill, that the inaccuracy in the bill as to quantity loaded was an “ irregularity” within the meaning of clause 20(a) and that the owners could recover from the charterers the losses incurred as a result of the delay.

在船方自己的水尺数据与岸方提供的数据不一致的时候，船长在现场一定要据理力争，在大副收据上添加对应的批注。如果问题无法解决而差异比较大的情况下，那么需委托独立的第三方检验员上船，共同再次做水尺，核算最终的货量。在这种出现争议的情况下，应该拒签签发任何清洁大副收据。

如F轮，当时船长在大副收据上添加了众多批注，如下图所示：

1. CARGO ON BOARD BY C/O’S DRAFT RPT TO BE:

2. CARGO ON BOARD BY SURVEYOR(CCS)RPT TO BE:

3. CARGO ON BOARD BYSURVEYOR(IUKR) RPT TO BE:

4. SAID TO WEIGH QUALITY NQUANTITY UNKNOW.

之前文章曾提到，在大副收据上加了批注，租家或其代理如果签发了与大副收据不一致的提单，则租家违约，船东有权利索赔任何损失。F轮的船长也加上了第4点SAID TO WEIGH QUALITY NQUANTITY UNKNOW，加上这类的批注的好处是，如果在卸货港出现短货，船东将无需承担任何责任，此类问题在之前文章已经说明，不再重复。

实际中，租家代理所签发的提单并未包括大副收据上的批注，租家构成违约。需要说明的是，一位业务能力尤其是商务能力出众的船长，可以为船东避免很多问题；基本上任何问题都会被船长扼杀在萌芽之中，租家占不到任何便宜。比如货量有争议，就会在大副收据上加批注，通知租家，听从租家的指示，签还是不签，该如何签等等；而不是递个抗议书盲目选择开航。

有必要重提的是，如果货量有争议，一定要在大副收据上做好对应的批注；但如果在明明知道货量有争议的情况下，船长仍然选择签发清洁提单，这种虚假陈述则会构成欺诈侵权。

三、货物状况

煤炭铁矿等大宗散货，基本上不存在货物质量品质的问题，但在装粮食，白糖，卷钢等的时候，如果货物有问题，则船长必须做如实批注。必须牢牢记住，当船长签出带有货物描述的提单时，如果他明知道是错误，他还是签出了不实的提单，那么这种骗人的行为，就构成了欺诈。

那么先来了解一下相关先例对于欺诈的解释。

在Derry v Peek (1889)案中，Herschell勋爵说到，权威已经建立了如下论点，第一，为了维持欺骗的行为，必须有欺诈的证据；第二，当在已经知道、不相信是真的或大意不管是真是假这些情况作出了虚假陈述，则构成了欺诈。

Having now drawn attention, I believe, to all the cases having a material bearing upon the question under consideration, I proceed to state briefly the conclusions to which I have been led. I think the authorities establish the following propositions: First, in order to sustain an action of deceit, there must be proof of fraud, and nothing short of that will suffice. Secondly, fraudis proved when it is shewn that a false representation has been made (1)knowingly, or (2) without belief in its truth, or (3) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. Although I have treated the second and third as distinct cases, I think the third is but an instance of the second, for one who makes a statement under such circumstances can have no real belief in the truth of what he states. To prevent a false statement being fraudulent, there must, I think, always be an honest belief in its truth. And this probably covers the whole ground, for one who knowingly alleges that which is false, has obviously no such honest belief. Thirdly, if fraud be proved, the motive of the personguilty of it is immaterial. It matters not that there was no intention to cheator injure the person to whom the statement was made.

虽然Herschell勋爵把第二个和第三个看作是不同的情况，但他认为第三个是第二个例子，因为在这种情况下发表声明的人不能真正相信他所说的真的。为了防止虚假陈述具有欺骗性，他认为，必须始终诚实地相信它的真实性。这可能掩盖了整个领域，如果一个人明知他宣称的是假的，显然他没有如此诚实的信念。第三，如果欺诈被证明，犯罪人的动机是非物质的，与做出此陈述的人没有意图欺骗或伤害关系不大。

在Sanders v McLean (1883)案中，Bowen勋爵说到，商业惯例的目的是为了防止破产的风险，不欺诈；任何人如果试图去追随及理解商人法，他们会发现很迷茫，如果他一开始是以商家开展业务在试图保护自己免受欺诈交易这一假设作基础。但情况恰恰相反，信用，而不是猜疑，才是商业交易的基础。商业天才主要在于知道谁应该信任，以及与谁打交道；而商业交往和交流并不是基于欺诈的假设，而是基于伪造的假设。

The objectof mercantile usage is to prevent the risk of insolvency,not of fraud; and anyone who attempts to follow and understand the Law Merchant will soon find himself lost, if he begins by assuming that merchants conduct their business on the basis of attempting to insure themselves against fraudulent dealing. The contrary is the case. Credit, not distrust, is the basis of commercial dealings. Mercantile genius consists principally in knowing whom to trust and with whom to deal, and commercial intercourse and communication is no more based on the supposition of fraud, than it is on the supposition of forgery.

在Brown Jenkinson & Co Ltd v PercyDalton (London) Ltd, [1957]案中，Morris勋爵说到，应被告的请求，原告作了一份他们知道是虚假的陈述，而且他们的意图应该由收到提单的人，包括任何可能有关的银行家所信赖。在这种情况下，欺诈侵权行为的所有要素都存在。如果能证明自己由于依赖此陈述而遭受损害，则遭受损害的人可以要求赔偿损失。他认为他的结论是，承诺赔偿如果原告做出了陈述而遭受任何损失，这种承诺是没有法律效力的。如果不以非法交易为依据，就无法提出索赔。承诺后，原告依赖实际上是这样的：如果你会做虚假陈述，从而欺骗受让人或银行家，我们将赔偿你可能导致你的任何损失。他认为法院不应该支持执行这样的协议。

… at there quest of the defendants, the plaintiffs made a representation which they knew to be false and which they intended should be relied upon by persons whoreceived the bill of lading, including any banker who might be concerned.In these circumstances, all the elements of the tort of deceit were present. Someone who could prove that he suffered damage by relying on there presentation could sue for damages. I feel impelled to the conclusion that a promise to indemnify the plaintiffs against any loss resulting to them from making the representation is unenforceable. The claim cannot be putforward without basing it upon an unlawful transaction. The promise upon which the plaintiffs rely is in effect this: if you will make a false representation,which will deceive indorsees or bankers, we will indemnify you against any loss that may result to you. I cannot think that a court should lend its aid to enforce such a bargain.

在HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank [2001]案中，Rix勋爵说到，话虽如此，但考虑到律师就这一问题提交的广泛意见，已详细考虑了这一论点；要排除欺诈，仍然需要尽可能明确的措辞。合同双方当事人诚实地对待对方；警告潜在的合同当事人，代理人可能的欺诈行为将是在任何协议中一个引人注目的条款。这无疑是为什么这原则的重点在以前从未决定过的一个原因。

Having said that, and having considered the argument in some detail in deference to the extensive submissions made by counsel on this issue, it remains the position that for fraud to be excluded requires the clearest possible wording. Parties to a contract assume honest dealing with one another. To warn a potential contract party of an agent's possible fraud would be a remarkable clause to find in any agreement. That is no doubt one reason why the point of principle has never previously had to be decided.

在Shogun FinanceLtd v Hudson[2003] 案中，Nicholls of Birkenhead 勋爵说到如下：法院的问题首先要求分析欺诈性虚假陈述对一个人订立合同的意图的影响，买卖合同与其他合同一样，需要达成协议，达成共识。卖方必须打算或似乎打算出售货物，买方必须按照约定的条款，打算或似乎打算购买货物。欺诈的存在并不否定任何一方当事人的这种意图的存在，欺诈没有消极意图。一个人的意图是一种精神状态，欺诈并不是消极的心态。欺诈性虚假陈述的存在意味着一个人的意图是在一个虚假的基础上形成的，而且，另一方所知道的是虚假的。欺诈对于合法权益或责任义务是消极的，要不从签订合同的时候就流露出这种意图。欺诈可使欺诈受害人拒绝进行合同，因欺诈性虚假陈述，他被诱导进入，并要求赔偿他可能遭受的任何损失，但欺诈没有否定合同成立的后果。

一个人是否同意这个或那是一个事实问题，欺诈并不否定事实。与意图一样，如同意、欺诈、否定法律权利或义务，从某人同意的某一特定事件中可以看出。欺诈可以摧毁合法的权利，但它不能摧毁事实。这种区别是重要的，在否定的意图或同意和否定的权利否则流出意愿或同意；这解释了为什么法律对待诱导欺诈可撤销合同，并非无效。这样的意图被法律视为足以构成一份合同，即使受害者当他发现欺诈拒绝履行合同。

The question before the House calls first for some analysis of the effect offraudulent misrepresentation on a person's intention to enter into a contract. A contract of sale and purchase, like any other contract, requires agreement, a meeting of minds. The seller must intend, or appear to intend, to sell the goods, and the buyer must intend, or appear to intend, to buy the goods on the agreed terms. The presence of fraud does not negative the existence of such anintention on the part of either party. Fraud does not negative intention. Aperson's intention is a state of mind. Fraud does not negative a state of mind.The existence of a fraudulent misrepresentation means that a person's intentionis formed on a false basis - a basis, moreover, known by the other party to be false. The effect of fraud is to negative legal rights or obligations otherwise flowing from an intention to enter into a contract. Fraud enables the victim of the fraud to decline to proceed with a contract into which, by reason of the fraudulent misrepresentation, he was induced to enter, and he has a claim for damages for any loss he may suffer.But fraud does not have the consequence of negativing the formation of a contract.

Whether a person has consented to this or that is a question of fact.Fraud does not negative a fact. As with intention, so with consent, fraud negatives legal rights or obligations otherwise flowing from a person having given his consent to a particular happening. Fraud can destroy legal rights; it cannot destroy facts.

This distinction, between negativing intention or consent and negativing the rights otherwise flowing from intentionor consent, is important. It explains why the law treats a contract induced by fraud as voidable,not void. The necessary coincidence of intention, or consensus ad idem, may exist even where the intention and consent of the victim were induced by fraud. An intention thus induced is regarded by the law as sufficient to found a contract, even though the victim may repudiate the contract as soon as he discovers the fraud.

在The “KritiPalm” 案中，Rix勋爵说到，有时候说必要的陈述必须是明确的，陈述须是准确的这句话太宽泛了。因为不诚实是欺骗的本质，可能是一个含糊不清的陈词，而这陈词是虚假的。在他看来，在欺骗行为中，基于特定的陈述给予原告救济是不正确的，当原告不敢发誓说他理解法院所说的意思时。在任何情况下，欺诈不诚实的陈述必须清楚地识别出。

253. It is sometimes said that the necessary representation must be unequivocal. That is too broad a statement to be accurate. Because dishonesty is the essence of deceit it is possible to be fraudulent even bymeans of an ambiguous statement, but in such a case it is essential that the representor should have intended the statement to be understood in the sense in which it is understood bythe claimant (and of course a sense in which it is untrue) or should have deliberately used the ambiguity for the purpose of deceiving him and succeeded in doing so.

In my opinion it would not be right in an action of deceit to give a plaintiff relief on the ground that a particular statement, according to the construction put onit by the Court, is false, when the plaintiff does not venture to swear that he understood the statement in the sense which the Court puts on it.

25.4 It remains true, however, that in any case of fraud the dishonest representation must be clearly indetified.

最后来看看The “Saga Explorer”案。

在该案中，船东安排该轮到韩国的Ulsan装钢管，钢管表面有锈且氧化严重。船方想添加批注，但发货人不同意。在装完货的时候，KOSAC(Korea Surveyors and Adjustors Co.Ltd) 出了一份货物检验报告，其部分内容如下：

As a result of the survey, we found that allthe shipments loaded on board the vessel to be in apparent good order &condition except the shipments mentioned on the 'Cargo Damage/Exception List'attached hereto.

With regard to the noted damages/exceptions to the shipments, we recommend that they shall be claused in or appended to the relevant Mate's Receipt and Bills of Lading.

除了损坏清单之外的货物处于表面状况良好，建议对于损坏部分的货物应该在大副收据及提单上作相应批注。大副也一同在此报告上签字确认。

但是最终，在收货人出了保函作为交换后，船东同意收货人的要求，于2008年9月25日完货的时候签发了清洁提单。

当船到美湾卸港的时候，因为货物质量问题，被其中一个收货人索赔。

船东抗辩称，他们以为合同中有如下条款，所以才同意签发了清洁提单。

RETLA CLAUSE: If the Goods as described by the Merchant are iron, steel, metal or timber products, the phrase 'apparent good order and condition' set out in the preceding paragraph does not mean the Goods were received in the case of iron, steel or metal products, free ofvisible rust or moisture or in the case of timber products free from warpage,breakage, chipping, moisture, split or broken ends, stains, decay or discoloration. Nor does the Carrier warrant the accuracy of any piece count provided by the Merchant or the adequacy of any banding or securing. If the Merchant so requests, a substitute Bill of Lading will be issued omitting this definition and setting forth any notations which may appear on the mate's ortally clerk's receipt.

如果货物为铁，钢，金属或木材制品，则“表面状况良好”的批注并不意味着是在铁、钢或金属制品是在没有明显的铁锈或湿气，或木材产品没有翘曲、破裂、剥落、潮湿、分裂或断头、污迹、腐烂或变色的情况所装运的。承运人也不保证商人提供的任何件数的准确性或任何绑扎或担保的充分性。如果商家提出要求，将签发一份替代提单，省略可能出现在大副或理货员收据上的任何批注。

但是Simon法官并不接受船东的辩解，认为船东明显了解货物真实的情况，在接受发货人的保函后选择了签发清洁提单，是船东自己的行为，而签发清洁提单涉及到船东的虚假陈述，这些陈述并不是真实的但被收货人依赖，该行为构成了欺诈侵权，船东得赔偿收货人损失。

The decision to issue and sign clean Bills of Lading involved false representations by the Owners which were known to be untrue and intended to be relied on. What occurred was not an 'honest and reasonable non-expert view of the cargo as it appeared,' but a deceitful calculation made on behalf of the Owners by their authorised agent at the request of the Shippers and to the prejudice of those who would rely on the contents of the Bills of Lading.

船长在明知道所载钢管存在问题的情况下，接受了发货人一点用处都没有的保函，同意签发清洁提单；结果造成了依赖此清洁提单的收货人的损失；船东最终被判此虚假陈述的行为构成欺诈侵权。

在本案中，有至关重要的三个方面，一是检验员和大副一同签字确认的检验报告，递交给船长的时候已经非常清晰明确的说明损坏的货物不符合表现状况良好的描述；二是船方过分依赖RETLA条款，盲目相信其能减轻船方的责任；三是作为签发清洁提单的交换，接受了发货人的保函，很显然此保函是非法的，没有任何法律效力。

总结：

航运业的盲目经营有时候是灾难根源，但是如果细心，还是能发现商业中出现的欺诈迹象。发货人或租家可能以各种各样的理由来诱导船长，去签发了一些对船东不利的清洁提单。而提单作为一种最重要的货物单据，代表了已装船的货物凭证，当其被转移至第三方的时候，银行或者收货人可能依赖此提单，给发货人结汇。一旦货物抵达卸港，发现货物实际状况并非如提单所陈述的，那么船东的这种虚假陈述就构成了欺诈侵权，需要赔偿无辜的第三方所有损失。

如文中F轮，如果船长在明知提单日期有问题，还是选择签发倒签提单，那么很显然，如果买家如The“Wilomi Tanana”案中的情况一样，由于市场波动，货价相差甚大，则买家可以起诉船东虚假陈述了提单日期，找船东索赔损失。

在期租合同下，另外一种常见的行为，比如换单（Switch B/L），在某些情况下，如果船东同意了租家此换单行为，也可能导致无辜第三的索赔。因此，为了规避风险，在期租合同下，最好列明租家没有权利换单。此换单所涉及的风险将另文再述。

最后，结合前文列举的几个先例，判断虚假陈述是否构成欺诈侵权归纳起来可从以下几个方面要素考虑：

（a）清楚知道事情的真相

（b）做了陈述

（c）陈述是虚假错误的

（d）无辜的第三方依赖此陈述，造成了损失

换成完整的一句话说就是：船东如果对于装运日期，货物数量，货物状况等事实情况清楚了解，并做了陈述，但其所陈述的是虚假的；无辜的第三方依赖此陈述，结果造成了损失。那么船东的这种虚假陈述行为就构成了欺诈侵权，无辜的第三方如果能证明有损失，就可以找船东索赔。

海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号航运佬）