2017-08-29
1863 
【关键词】通知、Premature、Laycan、取消合同
近期与一法务的朋友谈及租家行使解约权的事，她们定了一条船，受载期为15-19/Aug。但由于受制于卸货进度的影响，船舶无法在受载期内抵达装货港漳州，于是船东发了如下电邮给她们。
Dear All,
Please be informed that the situation of above mentioned vessel is as follows:
Zhangzhou
ETA pilot station: 21.08.2017.
All dates are based on weather permitting/all going well/force majeure and engine break down excluded and subject to changing of rotation.
Please keep all parties involved advised.We keep you posted.
在收到船东这封电邮，她们就回复了如下电邮。
According to your below email, the vessel MV XXX could not be ready to commence loading latest on the Cancelling Date (The contracted agreed Laycan is 15th to 19th August, 2017). After checking with our client the whole morning, due to this special situation which we have informed you, we could not accept the new cancelling date after the contracted cancelling date ( 19th August 2017 ), then we would lect to cancel this Charter Party.
Please kindly confirm to us whether the vessel MV XXX could arrive in the loading port within the agreed laycan or not before 2:00 PM BeijingTim today.
在没有看到合同之前，第一感觉就是，船东发的ETA等于没发一样，租家没有权利在19日之前要求取消合同，船东也没有义务在2点之前给答复确认是否船舶能在受载期内抵达装港。
实际中，租约的合同格式为《HEAVYLIFTVOY》，参合同条款如下：
Laydays/Cancelling
(a) The First Layday shall be the date stated in Box 10(i).
(b) The Cancelling Date shall be the date stated in Box 10(ii). If Box 10(ii) is not
filled in then the Cancelling Date shall be fourteen (14) calendar days after the First
Layday.
(c) The Vessel shall be ready for loading at any time on or between the First Layday
and the Cancelling Date, both dates inclusive, in the Carrier’s option. Should the
Carrier give Notice of Readiness prior to the First Layday, the Merchant may, at his
option, accept such an earlier loading date and, in accordance with Sub-clause 9(f),
the actual time used prior to the First Layday shall count as laytime.
(d) Should it appear that the Vessel will not be ready to commence loading latest on
the Cancelling Date the Carrier shall immediately notify the Merchant. The Carrier
shall notify the Merchant of a proposed new cancelling date as soon as it is in a position to do so with reasonable certainty.
(e) Within seventy-two (72) running hours after the Carrier has notified the Merchant of the new cancelling date as a foresaid and latest when the Vessel is ready for loading, whichever is the earlier, the Merchant shall advise the Carrier whether they elect to cancel this Charter Party, failing such advice the new cancelling date as notified by the Carrier shall become the Cancelling Date.
(f)Should the Merchant cancel the Charter Party in accordance with Sub-clause (e), any amount paid to the Carrier in advance and not earned shall be returned to the Merchantby the Carrier. If Box 24 (Termination fee(s)) is filled in then such terminationfees shall not apply to this Clause.
(g) The Carrier shall not be responsible for any direct orindirect loss or damages whatsoever, whether foreseeable or not, incurred bythe Merchant as a result of the Merchant cancelling this Charter Party inaccordance with Sub-clause (e) nor shall the Carrier be responsible for anydirect or indirect loss or damages whatsoever, whether foreseeable or not,suffered by the Merchant as a result of the failure of the Vessel to be readyfor loading latest on the Cancelling Date.
如果租家在收到船东的电邮，72小时内未做答复，那么新的解约日将自动延长至21日。租家依据(e)款选择取消合同，租约双方彼此的责任因租家选择取消合同而解除，互不承担。在这件事情上，双方的做法都没有问题。
但是如果是租约合同格式是NYPE 46，如第14条：
14. That if required by Charterers, time not to commence before ______ and should vessel not have given written notice of readiness on or before ______ but not later than 4 p.m.Charterers or their Agents to have the option of cancelling this Charter at anytime not later than the day of vessel's readiness.
NYPE 93第16条：
16 Delivery/ Cancelling
If required by the Charterers, time shall not commence before and should the Vessel not be ready for delivery on or before but not later than hours, the Charterers shall have the option of cancelling this Charter Party..
或Baltime1939第21条：
Should the vessel not be delivered by the date indicated in Box 22, the Charterers shall have the option of cancelling. If the Vessel cannot be delivered by the cancelling date, the Charterers, if required,shall declare within 48 hours after receiving notice there of whether they cancel or will take delivery of the Vessel.
如这类的条款，情况是否一样呢；那么先来看看几个先例。
一、Cheikh Boutros Selim El-Khoury v Ceylon ShippingLines Ltd, [1967] –The
“Madeleine”案
该案之前有提过，因为没有除鼠证书而被判不适航，租家有权取消合同。租家认为获得此除鼠证书需要2天时间，于是选择了在解约日当天早上8点就意图解除合同，在同一天晚上8点48又重说解除合同。
Roskill法官认为，很明显，租家必须确定他们试图行使的权利，一开始是第22天赋予租家的权利，这必须是该条款的真正意图。因此，他认为回到该条款的措辞，应该是这样的：如果该船不能在1957年5月2日交付的话，租家可以选择取消。
众所周知，租约中的条款不能相互隔离，像任何其他合同一样的租船合同必须合理和全面地解释。如果有一系列标准格式的条款已经使用了很多年，由法院和仲裁员多次解释，法院应该看整个条款。很明显，当看到第22条时，它是指船东按他们的义务但却未履约，该条款一开始就说：“船舶不能交付。。。”
It is well established that clauses in charterparties cannot be construed in isolation from each other. A charterparty like any other contract must be construed sensibly and in its entirety. Where one has a series of clauses in a standard form which has been in use for a great many years, and which has been interpreted many times by the courts and by arbitrators, the court must look at the provisions as a whole.
因此，很明显，该条款提及履行义务，然后转而看看在哪施加了该义务。首先回到第1条，列明船舶要交付并且在承租人的处置之下：上午9时至下午6时，或上午9时至下午2时，如果在星期六；在CALCUTTA可用的泊位，她可以安全地始终正浮，在各个方面适合装运普通货物的服务。
必须看到第22条所假设的船东不履约的责任，该责任正是租约第一条下的责任。这个责任就是需要不早于4月18日，如果是周末从早上9点到下午6点，或者从早上9点到下午2点如果是周六的话，在可用的泊位，该泊位始终能安全正浮，在各个方面都适合装运普通货物。显而易见，作为合同的真实意图，第22条现在回顾第1条，船东未能按照第1条的规定交付船舶，租家根据第22条因此又取消的权利。
Roskill法官认为，重要的是要强调，租家声称行使的是由第22条给出的明确的合同权利。他们取消的权利不以任何方式取决于船东违反租船合同。根据第22条取消的权利不取决于船东的任何违约行为，而是船东是否已经及时地履行了第1条规定的义务。如果有的话，租家没有权利取消；如果没有，则有权取消。
It is important to emphasise that which the charterers are claiming to exercise is an express contractual right given by clause 22. Their right to cancel does not in any way depend upon any breach of the charterparty by the owners. Entitlement to cancel under clause 22 depends not on any breach by the owners but upon whether the owners have timeously complied with their obligations under clause 1. If they have, there is no right to cancel. If they have not, there is a right to cancel .
Roskill法官认为，如他已说过的，合同第22条不能与第1条剥离开来，第1条规定船东必须交付一艘在各个方面都适合装运普通货物这种状态的船舶。这里有一个明确的适航性保证，除非船舶在适航下状况良好的时候交付，包括港口卫生当局的必要证书，否则租家有权取消。Roskill法官认为，租家有那种权利，因此裁决是不正确的，认为租家并没有。
Roskill法官他十分同意Scrutton勋爵在他第17版的书中所说的，已经正确地说明了法律问题。当然，事实上租约下并没有赋予提前取消租约的权利，但这并不剥夺租家在取消日期到来之前寻求索赔的权利，如博学的Scrutton将其归类为普通法。如果租家试图说租约已经受挫或有预期违约使他们能够废除的话，那么租家在普通法下将有这种权利。
I respectfully agree with the passage in the 17th end of Scrutton ascorrectly stating the law. Of course, the fact that there is no contractual right to cancel in advance does not prevent a charterer seeking to claim the right to rescind in advance of the cancelling date, as the learned editors of Scrutton put it ‘at common law’ . . .Where the charterer seeks to say that the contract has been frustrated or that there has been an anticipatory breach which entitles him to rescind, then he has such rights as are given to him at common law.
因此来到第二个问题，即是否该权利及时地行使了。Roskill法官认为他已经处理分析了时间问题，船东不能说他有5月10日整天的时间用来交付船舶避免被取消。如果为了避免租约被租家这种风险，船东不得不在不晚于5月10日的下午6点前交付船舶。但是作为合同的解释及权力问题，已经有非常明确的法律，在销约条款下并没有合法的权力去废除租约，除非已经到了该条款特别规定的日期。换一种说法，根据该条款没有预先取消的权利。
In my judgment, the owners cannot say they had the whole of May 10 in which to deliver to avoid cancellation. They had to deliver, in my judgment,not later than 6 pm on May 10 if they were to avoid the risk of the charterparty being cancelled by the charterers .
[But]both as a matter of construction of the charterparty and as a matter of authority, it is clear law that there is no contractual right to rescind a charterparty under the cancelling clause unless and until the date specified in that clause has been reached. In other words . . . there is no anticipatory right to cancel under the clause.
在该案中，Roskill法官在遵循了长久以来所建立的做法，判租家没有权利在解约日最后一刻到来之前就取消合同。租家单方面试图终止租约的行为构成了预期违约，最终导致毁约。
二、Maredelanto Compania Naviera SA v Bergbau-Handel GmbH [1971] -The “Mihalis Angelos ”案
在该案中，船东在1965年5月份将MihalisAngelos轮租给租家，去执行一个从越南的Haiphong装货到汉堡或其它欧洲港口卸的航次任务。
船东说该轮Expected ready to load under this charter about 1stJuly, 1965。但是仲裁庭认为事实上显然不可能，在5月25日的时候，该轮还在位于太平洋中，正在前往香港的途中，预期6月25-26左右才能抵达香港，卸货需约两星期；之后需约2天时间做特别检验，然后从香港开到Haiphong约需2天，这样预计抵达Haiphong大约在7月15日左右。
合同约定，如果未能在7月20日，准备就绪的话，租家有权取消合同。该轮最终于6月23日抵达香港，但是在香港卸货遭遇未预期的延误，一直卸到7月23日才卸完。然而，同时，租家他们自己也有麻烦，他们发现装港海防没有货物了（磷灰石矿）。他们以为这是由于北越战争，据说美国人把铁路线轰炸到了港口。
在7月17日，租家以不可抗力为由，取消了合同，船东接受租家毁约。该轮还在香港的时候，船东他们并没有把船租给其他任何人，而是选择在7月29日把船给卖了。
仲裁员认为，事实上，如果在香港卸完货后，船开到Haiphong，租家，毫无疑问将以船舶错过了销约期而取消合同。因此船东将一无所获。船东声称他们在7月17日租家选择取消合同的时候错失了租约，找租家索赔4,000欧元的损害赔偿，此金额为可能的下个航次与租家之间的差价。仲裁员拒绝了船东此申请，但是法官允许。
第一个争议的焦点为，租家认为合同中的“Expected ready to load under this charter about 1st July”，该条是合同的条件条款，但船东此预期并没有合理的基础，因此违反了此条件。仲裁员发现，船东在5月25日的时候，预期该轮能够或将在7月1日左右抵达装港Haiphong，该预期并不合理。
当在1965年7月17日取消合同的时候，租家并没有没有采取这一观点，而是以不可抗力的原因。但船东承认，如果这一点是正确的话，那么租家可以依赖它。事实上，一个缔约方给出一个不好的理由来确定它，这并不妨碍他以后的依赖，当他发现它时。
争议焦点可以简单地处理。是否“expected ready to load”这一条款是一个条件，如果是的话一旦违反租家就可以置合同于不顾；或者仅仅是一个保证，如果被违反的话仅产生损害赔偿，而不是取消的权利，而这也在销约条款里明确规定。这个描述被仲裁员，及上诉院的Edmun Davies勋爵及Megaw勋爵判为是租约的条件，在之前的文章已经说过（文章已删除，有需要可私下沟通），不再详细说明。
关于第二点争议，及租约第11条的真正含义问题，该条款规定如下：
Should the vessel not be ready to load (whether in berth or not) on or before the 20th July '65, Charterers have the option of cancelling this contract, such option to be declared, if demanded, at least 48 hours before vessel's expected arrival at port of loading. Should the vessel be delayed on account of average or otherwise, Charterers to be informed as soon as possible,and if the vessel is delayed for more than 10 days after the day she is stated to be expected ready to load, Charterers have the option of cancelling this contract, unless a cancelling date has been agreed upon.
对于租约第11条的真正意图，租家认为即使他们在第一点争议上是错误的，那么他们依据租约第11点，也有权利在1965年7月17日取消合同。本来，租家意图取消合同是以不可抗力理由，但事实上他们给了错误的理由，认为和不可抗力不相关。船东认为租家取消合同不能依赖租约第11条有两个理由，第一，该条款在7月20日之前不允许租家行使取消租约的权利；第二，根据第11条，看来取消合同不能被视为行使选择权，因为租家将其声称的取消通知表示为完全不同的理由。
船东的观点非常简单，该条款以“如果船舶在1965年7月20日或之前未准备就绪可以装货…”，这些自由管辖及控制了该条款，给租家为了他们的自己的利益一个选择权。该选择权是可行使的，也仅在条件都满足的情况下才可行使，即7月20日的时候船舶尚未准备就绪装货。
The charterers are given an option, for their own benefit. This option is exercisable, and exercisable only, when the condition is fulfilled: namely, that on 20th July the vessel is not ready to load.
但租家辩称，开头的措辞应该被解释为，“如果船舶没有准备就绪装货，或者她处于这样的状况，在1965年7月20日或之前准备就绪装货…”
7月17日，该船仍在香港卸货。如现在所知，她没有可能在7月20前到达Haiphong。因此，租家（虽然事实上并不是这样做）可以合法地行使这个条款下的选择权，即使7月20日还没有到来。
Megaw勋爵他对于仲裁庭的判决非常尊敬地表达了不同的意见，他对于Edmund Davies勋爵的认同感到安慰。他认为船东提出的第一答案是对的。如果这是错误的，第二个答案将不利于船东。在第一个答案中提出的条款的修订，符合他所提到的情况，即我们是否认为是正确的，无论他们是格言还是超过格言。在这两种情况下，条款的措辞不同，影响推理对本条款的适用性。
Megaw勋爵认为租家在该条款中的意图可能会被许可，虽然他认为它应该恰当的描述为一大胆的意图，如果那样的话将使该条款成为实施其目的的更明智的工具。但是他认为船东的律师在他所提交的是正确的。它还涉及到一个不存在于双方心目中的思想，在他看来，没有必要给出明确的法律和实际效果。如果租家非常自信船舶将错过销约日，由于某种原因，在该日期到达之前有意向结束租约，没有任何阻止他们要求船东同意租约被取消的事情，那将不需要第11条。如果船东同意，第11条既不帮助也不妨碍。没有必要加入那些不是通过相互同意实现的话。如果船东不同意，租家在将这些建议的词语阅读到该条款中是否有优势。在没有船东同意的情况下，租家没有比重写该条款更好的。没有强制执行该条款，租家如果有信心，在解约日期之前船舶仍然未到达，可以根据该条款提前进行任何预期行安排，当解约日来临的时候行使他们的选择权。当然，如果他们对船舶到达的预测是错误的，如果事实上这艘船在解约日前抵达了，租家如果已经做出其他的安排，将会遇到麻烦。但这不是大胆解释这个条款的好理由。真正只是一个非常奇怪和特殊的情况，如现在，建议的意义的延伸可能是任何重要的；在这里，如果重要的话，这只会是重要的，因为租家根据租船合同的其他规定误解了他们的权利。没有任何能够对他们造成可想象的伤害如果他们等到20日的话，然后引用解约条款。大胆的解释是租家要求的，而不是因为自然解释导致实际困难，而是为了避免自己的错误的后果。
最终Megaw勋爵认为在第二个争议上船东是正确的，租家无权在解约日来临之前就解除合同，换句话说也就是早于解约日就解除合同构成毁约。
In the absence of agreement by the owners, the charterers are no better off as a result of the re-writing of the clause. Without any forced construction of the clause, the charterers can, if they are confident of the non-arrival of the vessel by the cancelling date, go ahead and make whatever arrangements they wish in anticipation of exercising their option under the clause when the cancelling date arrives. Of course, if they prove wrong in their forecast of the vessel's arrival, and if the vessel in fact, after all, makes the cancelling date, the charterers will be in trouble if they have already made other arrangements. But that is not a good ground for giving a bold interpretation to the clause. It is really in only a very odd and exceptional case, such as the present, that the suggested extension of meaning could be ofany importance; and here, if it were important, it would only be of importance because the charterers misinterpreted their rights under other provisions of the charter party. No conceivable harm would have been done to them if they had waited until 20thJuly and then invoked the cancelling clause. The bold construction is called for by the charterers, not because the natural construction leads topractical difficulty, but in order to try to save themselves from the consequences of their own error.
79. I think the owners are right on the second issue.
Edmun Davies勋爵认为有了Megaw勋爵在这个问题上的阐述，他同意Megaw勋爵所提出的理由，认为在这个问题上应该作出对租家不利的判决。他认为更加容易接受这一观点，因为只有极端罕见才有可能出现。此外，要让租家受到第11条的严格条款的约束，不会造成损害；如果他们知道这些情况变得明显或可能，船舶不能准备在规定的日期或大约在规定的日期准备就绪的话，租家可以很自由地向船东通知他们打算行使取消合同的权力的意图，他们也将同时作出其它的租赁安排。基于所给予的理由，Edmun Davies勋爵认为Roskill法官在The “Madeleine”案中所说的，很好地表达了他在这点上想说的一切。
“就我而言，如果船舶在5月10日之前没有交付的情况下，如果有明确的权利取消，我很难看到，一个隐含的权利可以同时存在，以便在较早的时间点取消该合同，即当在不可避免的情况下，船舶不能抵达所述的取消日期...我会说，无论如何，合理的可能是暗示（如）一个条款...不能说对合同给予经营效力是必要的，因为合同只是在特定日期而不是在任何较早时间提供明确的取消权利。”
I accept this view all the more readily because I think it is one likely to arise only with extreme rarity. Furthermore, to hold the charterers bound by the strict terms of clause 11 does them no harm; for if circumstances become known to them which make it clear or probable that the vessel cannot be ready to load on or about the specified date, it is always open to the charterers to communicate forth with to the owners their intention to exercise their power of cancellation on the date fixed by the charter party and that they will meanwhile be making alternative chartering arrangements. It was submitted in argument that good sense demanded that the charterer should have the right to cancel before the date specified in the charter party, but, for the reason I have given, I see no reason for not adopting the contrary view expressed by Mr Justice Pearson in The "Helvetia - S" (1960, 1 IlL.R.,540, at 551) and by Mr Justice Roskill in The "Madeleine" (1967, 2LlL.R., 224). The latter felicitously expressed all that I want to say on thisaspect of the appeal in these words at page 241:
"For my part, I have great difficulty in seeing how, where there is an express right given to cancel if the vessel is not delivered by May 10th, an implied right can concurrently exist to cancel under the clause at some earlier point of time, namely when it becomes inevitable that the stated cancelling date will not be able to be attained by the ship... I would say that, however reasonable it might be to imply (such) a term...it cannot be said to be necessary to give business efficacy to the contract because the contractgives an express right to cancel at a certain date and not at any earlier time".
三、Marbienes Compania Naviera SA v Ferrostaal AG [1976]-The“Democritos”案
在该案中，租约以NYPE格式；合同规定解约日为1969年12月20日。该轮于1969年12月16日抵达Durban，但其2舱内的双层甲板被发现倒塌。维修将需要一些时间，因此可能无法在解约日之前准备就绪。船长给了书面的保证，他的船舶可以装货，于是装货作业开始。
租家认为，船东在租约下有绝对的责任义务，在1969年12月20日解约日之前再Durban交付船舶；这也是一关键点，船东在那时将需要交付一艘如租家要求的状况合适的船舶；但船在交付的时候情况并不是这样，二舱的双层甲板损坏了，因此租家认为船东违约。租家承认，他们可能已经放弃了拒绝接受船舶的任何权利，但是他们声称他们有权索赔船舶处于不合格状态的损害赔偿。损害赔偿是由于该轮无法装载全部货物而造成的损失，及之后在西雅图进行维修的时间。
The charterers admit that they may have waived any right to reject the vessel, but nevertheless they claim that they had a right to sue for damages for the vessel being in an unfit condition.
Denning勋爵认为，现在该合同中没有任何有对船东在1969年12月20日交付船舶的绑定条款，唯一的线索是从解约条款中寻找。当然，这是隐含的条款，船东将在1969年12月20日之前交付一状况合适的船舶，但这绝对不是绝对的义务。只要他们用合理的勤勉，他们就没有违反。在本案中，船东已经尽了合理勤勉之责任义务，因此船东并未违反该默示责任。
接下来是解约条款。其作用是虽然船东可能没有违约，但是如果船舶在解约日期仍未处于恰当的状况条件下，租家为了他们自身的保护而有权解约，这是唯一的作用。Denning勋爵引援ALSmith 法官在Smithv Dart & Son (1884)所说，船东不承诺在某一天到达那里，但说：“如果我没有到达那里，你可以取消。”。
There is, of course, an implied term that the owners will use reasonable diligence to deliver the ship in a fit condition by 20 December 1969. But that is not anabsolute obligation. So long as they have used reasonable diligence, they are not in breach. In this case it is found that reasonable diligence was used, so there is no breach by them of that impliedobligation.
Next the cancelling clause. Its effect isthat, although there may have been no breach by the owners nevertheless the charterers are, for their own protection, entitled to cancel if the vessel is not delivered in a proper condition by the cancelling date. That is the sole effect.
On this point the Judge referred to the English cases, particularly 14 QBD 105 at p 110, when AL Smith J said:
The shipowner does not contract to get there by a certain day, but says: ‘If I donot get there you may cancel.’
Denning勋爵继续引援M’Laren勋爵在Scotland, Nelson & Sons v The Dundee East Coast Shipping Co Ltd (1907)所说：如果可以证明船东已经尽了最大的努力，而且拖延是由于不可避免的海上事故或危险所造成的，我应该认为不会造成任何损害。合同可以取消，但没有损害赔偿，每一方都将在其权利范围内。
The first is from 44 SLR 661. It was avoyage charter, but Lord M’Laren saidthis:
If it can be shown that the shipowners had used their best endeavours and that the delay was due to unavoidable accident or perils of the sea, I should have been of opinion that no damages were due. The contract could be cancelled but damages would not be due, for each party would then be within his rights.
Denning勋爵认为，这些权威表明，只要船东尽了合理勤勉，他就不违约；但是如果船舶在解约日仍未交付的话，租家有权取消合同。行使解约选择权取决于船舶未到达；但是如果船舶算到达了吗如果不适航的话？
These authorities show that as long as the owner uses reasonable diligence, he is not in breach, but the charterer is entitled to cancel if the vessel is not delivered by the cancelling date . The right to exercise an option to cancel depends on non-arrival. But does a ship ‘arrive’if she is unseaworthy?
关于这点，在之前说过的The “HongKong Fir”案中，似乎有了答案。只有因船舶不适航造成的延误从根本上动摇了合同的根基，剥夺了租家在原租约下所能获得的利益，租约受挫，租家才有权利以此理由来解除合同。
四、Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA [1989]- The“Simona”案
在该案中，该轮被安排到Durban装卷钢到Bilbao卸，租约规定如果船舶在7月9日或之前未准备就绪可以装货的话租家有权利取消合同。在7月2日，船东要求租家展期，但租家意图取消合同，紧接着定了另外一条船。船东并不接受租家毁约，当7月8日抵达Durban的时候，船东递交了NOR，虽然在那个时候船舶在事实上并未准备就绪可以装货。租家拒绝接受此NOR。在7月12日，船舶仍然未准备就绪，租家发了另外一封取消合同的通知。船东随后找租家索赔亏舱费。
该案的主要争议焦点是，租家在这种情况下，是否失去了解除他们与船东签订的合同的权利。Ackner勋爵认为，现阶段重要的一点是强调租家取消第十条所规定的权利是独立的选择，只有船舶在1982年7月9日或以前没有准备好装货的情况下才可行使。合同第10条并未强加个船东任何在解约日之前开始装货的合同义务。
Ackner勋爵认为，租家发通知意图取消合同该事实非常清楚，为时过早。该行为构成了预期违约及毁约，因为该取消的权利在解约日来临之前并不能被有效地行使。该毁约也并被船东所接受。
The owners claimed dead freight. Lords Bridge, Templeman, Oliver and Jauncey agreed with Lord Ackner.
It is important at this stage to emphasise that the charterers’ right to cancel given by cl 10 was an independent option, only exercisable if the vessel was not ready to load on or before 9 July 1982. Clause10 did not impose any contractual obligation on the owners to commence loading by the cancellation date.
It is common ground that the action of the charterers in giving the notice purporting to cancel the contract was premature. It constituted an anticipatory breach and repudiation of the charterparty, because the right of cancellation could not be validly exercised until the arrival of the cancellation date, some seven days hence. It is equally common ground that this repudiation was not accepted by the owners .
Ackner勋爵认为，当一方错误地拒绝履行义务时，不会自动使合同终止。无辜方有选择权。他可以接受不正当的毁约并提出损害赔偿，或者他可以忽略或拒绝接受该意图，确认租约继续存在。
When one party wrongly refuses to perform obligations, this will not automatically bring the contract to an end. The innocent party has an option. He may either accept the wrongful repudiation as determining the contract and sue for damages or he may ignore or reject the attempt to determine the contract and affirm its continued existence.
Ackner勋爵认为，如众多的先例一样，在本案中，如果承诺人他愿意，可以将预计通知视为不起作用，如第11条：船舶等待合同执行时间，然后让对方对不履行的所有后果负责；但是在这种情况下，他为了对方和他自己的利益而保留合同；他仍然受到其下的所有义务和责任，并且使另一方不仅可以完成合同，如果得到这样的建议，尽管他之前这一点上毁约，但还利用任何可能的情况，这将有助于他下降风险并可完成它。另一方面，承诺人如果认为合适，可以将另一方的毁约视为不合合约的规定，并可以立即将其行为作为违约行为，并采取行动，他将有权因对方在指定时间内不履行合同而产生的损害请求赔偿；但是，对于可能给予他减轻损失的手段的任何情况，均有权减免。
The promisee, if he pleases, may treat the notice of intention as inoperative, and Chapter 11: The Vessel await the time when the contract is to be executed, and then hold the other party responsible for all the consequences of non-performance: but in that case he keeps the contract alive for the benefit of the other party as well as his own;he remains subject to all the obligations and liabilities under it, and enablesthe other party not only to complete the contract, if so advised, not with standing his previous repudiation of it, but also to take advantage of any supervening circumstance which would justify him in declining to complete it. On the other hand, the promiseemay, if he thinks proper, treat the repudiation of the other party as a wrongful putting an end to the contract, and may at once bring his action as one breach of it and in such action he will be entitled to such damages as would have arisen from the non-performance of the contract at the appointed time,subject, however, to abatement in respect of any circumstances which may have afforded him the means of mitigating his loss.
但是在该案中，Ackner勋爵认为，船舶未能准备就绪并不是租家的行为造成的，其原因事船东决定先装载其它的货物。为了使租约得以延续，船东为了避免解约的运作，只能通过按时递交准备就绪装货的通知（他们没有做到），或通过建立（他们不能）他们的失败是租家他们行为所造成的结果，且租家放弃了他们的选择权。
最终Ackner勋爵驳回了船东的上诉。
The non-readiness of the vessel by the cancelling date was in no way induced by the charterers’ conduct. It was the result of the owners’ decision to load other cargo first. In short, inaffirming the continued existence of the contract, the owners could only avoid the operation of the cancellation clause by tendering the vessel ready to load on time (which they failed to do), or by establishing (which they could not)that their failure was the result of the charterers’ conduct in representing that they had given up their option, which representation the owners had actedon by not presenting the vessel on time.
I would therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.
总结：
通过这几个先例的简单介绍，可以发现Heavyliftvoy与NYPE, Baltime并不一样。如NYPE的租约格式，解约条款对于船东租家双方都是一种保护，如果船东未能在解约日届满的时候，按租约中约定的位置交付一准备就绪的船舶的话，那么租家就有权行使其解除合约的权利；这种权利只是一种选择权，而不是一种责任。相反，如果租家解除了合同，船东也便可以不再承担责任。除非船东存在过失，如之前文中所说的，船东未履行尽力速遣，未尽合理勤勉之默示的责任义务，则船东需为此延误交付船舶负责；换句话说，租家可以因此种延误交船找船东索赔损害赔偿。在英国法下，船东有按租约去交付一符合租约约定条件状态的船舶，绝对的责任和义务；但是并未强加于船身上，在解约日之前船舶必须准备就绪的责任义务，该责任义务在递交NOR或交船通知的那一个刻产生。当然，如果此种延误是由于不可避免的海上事故或危险所造成的，船东已经证明尽了最大努力，那么船东就未违约，无需为此延误所造成的任何损害赔偿负责，如M’Laren勋爵所说的。
在另一方面，在解约日最后一刻来临之前，如租金到期之前船东不可以行使留置权或撤船等，租家无权单方面终止租约，解除合同；要不这种过早的行为将构成预期违约，造成租家毁约。但是如果这种预期的延误，是由于船东自己的行为，决定先去装载其它货物造成的，如The“Simona”案，租家纵然试图过早解除合同，但Ackner勋爵还是判船舶未能准备就绪不是租家过早试图解除合同造成的，是船东自己的原因，决定先去装载别的货物。
当然为了安全起见，如果租家一定要解除合同的话，应该尽量在解约日届满的时候再通知船东解除合同，行使其合同下赋予的解除合同的选择权。在英国普通法下，如Kerr法官在The “Democritos”案中所说的，租家在船舶递交NOR之前，并不要求去做任何事；一旦过了12月20日，租家将有权取消合同，如果他愿意的话；租家仍然有取消租约的选择权，直到船舶递交NOR的那一刻。而船东，则相反，如果租家未行使其解除合同的选择权，纵然错过了解约日，船东还是得尽力速遣，尽合理勤勉，尽船东自己做的努力按租约要求去交付船舶；但很可能租家在船舶递交NOR或交船通知的时候才解除合同。
因此为了避免这种不确定性及风险，船东还应该努力在租约(NYPE格式)的解约条款中，加入类似于Heavyliftvoy的询问条款。如果船东在明知船舶可能错过解约日，那么提前询问租家是否同意展期，或是否将解除合同；如果租家未做答复，则解约日自动延期其最新的动态。这样一来就可以很好地规避此风险，避免因错过解约日而造成巨额被取消租约的损失。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
