关于泊位租约的若干问题
日期:2017-08-11 阅读:1705

     【摘要】在航运实务中, 很多人会认为符合“One Safe berth, London”这类的租约,可以归为泊位租约;有的人以为“One safe berth one safe port”这样的描述也可认为是泊位租约。那么什么才是真正的泊位租约合同呢?本文通过对几个先例的对比介绍来谈谈泊位租约的几个问题。

     【关键词】泊位、Berth Charter、选择权
 
      近期碰到一争议,因为大雾封港,船舶无法直接靠泊,于是在抵达锚地的时候船长递交了NOR。等大雾散去,封港解除后,船舶趁潮水靠泊,随后开始卸货;但这个时候船长并没有再次递交NOR。

       租约中关于NOR递交的条款如下,船舶在抵达后,完全系好或抛完锚,在各个方面都准备就绪,获得入港许可后递交;如果泊位或锚地被占,则可在通常等泊地点递交NOR。
 
      Notice of Readiness (NOR) at each load port shall be tendered in writing by facsimile,email or courier, to Charterer and/ or Charterer‘s nominated agent (if any) only as per Box 18 after the Vessel has arrived, having made fast at berth oranchored, and is in all respects ready and in free pratique (relevant contactdetails to be provided on fixture). If the loading berth or anchorage is unavailable when the Vessel reaches the load port due to the berth or anchorage being occupied by another vessel,the Vessel may tender its NOR from the normal recognised waiting place designated by the Port Authority, even if outside the normal port limits and whether or not the Vessel has been cleared by customs and/or quarantine authorities.
 
       结合租约中关于卸货目的地描述:1/2 safe berth(s) Qingdao or additional1/2 safe berth(s) / safe port(s) / safe anchorage (s) as specified。很显然,这是明显的泊位租约条款。在泊位租约条款下,如果泊位空着,那么船舶就无法递交有效的NOR;而没有有效的NOR,则laytime不会自动开始起算;就算是开始卸货了,也不能算。这方面的,可以简单参考如下;也可以参之前关于Laytime计算和NOR的文章。
 
     《Laytime and Demurrage》-Chapter  3-Commencement of laytime 3.354 E:
If no valid notice is ever submitted and there is no agreement, waiver or estoppel, commencement of cargo operations will not automatically trigger the running of laytime.

      Also in the“Mass Glory ”case,  Moore-Bick J in his judgement as below, held that time did not begin to run due to no valid NOR at Xiamen.
 
       42.For these reasons I am satisfied that the majority of the tribunal were wrong to hold that time started to count at Xiamen from the commencement of discharge. No valid notice of readiness was ever given at that port and therefore time did not begin to run.
 
       在这个例子中,因为租约为泊位租约,导致泊位空着的情况下,在锚地递交的NOR无效;没有有效的NOR,导致laytime无法起算,船东没有滞期费收入,相反还得支付全部的速遣费,约6万美金。因此,船东在泊位租约下的风险比港口租约大得多。
 
       泊位租约“Berth Charters”,很可能是最古老的租约;众所周知,如果没有相反规定的话,那么通常在泊位租约下,船舶需抵达指定泊位才能算是到达船;在成为到达船(arrived ship)、一切准备就绪(ready)后才可以递交有效的NOR。

      很多人可能以为Berth,仅仅指泊位/码头;但其实这种认识是狭隘的, “berth”所包含的范围更广。关于泊位的权威定义,可以参《Baltic Code 2007》中,关于泊位的定义如下:

      “Berth” shall mean the specific place within a port where the vessel is to load or discharge. If the word “berth” is not used, but the specific place is (or is to be ) identified by its name, this definition shall still apply.

       “泊位”系指船舶在港内装载或卸货的具体位置。如果不使用“泊位”一词,但具体地点是(或将由)其名称所确定,则该定义仍然适用。
 
        及《Laytime Definitions for Charter Parties 2013》中的定义如下:

        2. BERTH shall mean the specific place where the Vessel is to load or discharge and shall include, but not be limited to, any wharf,anchorage, offshore facility or other location used for that purpose.

       泊位是指船舶装载或卸货的具体地点,应包括但不限于任何码头、锚地、近海设施或用于此目的的其他地点。
 
      对比2007年的和2013年的,不难发现,泊位的定义中不再包含有within a port。这个within a port或within the port limited 则成为了递交有效NOR的额外的一个条件,如在The“Arundel Castle”[2017]EWHC 116 (Comm)案中,规定了NOR必须在“withinport limits”港界内递交,但实际递交的时候船并不在港界内,法官判NOR无效。
 
      为了对比分析,再来了解一下,关于港口的权威定义:

      PORT shall mean any area where vessels load or discharge cargo and shall include,but not be limited to, berths, wharves, anchorages, buoys and offshore facilities as well as places outside the legal, fiscal or administrative areawhere vessels are ordered to wait for their turn no matter the distance fromthat area.

       港口是指船舶装载或卸下货物的任何地方,应包括,但不限于,泊位、码头、锚地、浮筒、海上设施以及法律之外的地方,财政或行政区域船舶习惯被要求等泊的地方,与等泊位置的距离远近无关。
 
       接下来先来简单看看The“Merida”一案,再来说到底什么才泊位租约。
 
       2007年2月5日,船东与租家签订了一份程租合同,船东派“Merida”轮去执行租家安排的从天津新港装钢板,意向到Cadiz及Bilbao卸的航次任务。

       船于2007年3月10日0400抵达新港并递交NOR。船舶随后在等泊,于3月30日1700上引水,1715起锚靠泊,于1950最终靠好(allfast);2125开始装货,31日0600完货。

        船东认为是港口租约,在抵达的时候可以递交NOR;租家抗辩说是泊位租约,只有船事实上靠好泊位才可以递交有效的NOR;争议金额为502,267.24美金。
 
       租约相关条款约定如下:

       One good and safe charterers' berth terminal 4 stevedores Xingang to one good and safe berth Cadizand one good and safe berth Bilbao

        [Interposing here, I shall refer to this term, neutrally, as the"opening term.

        DETAILS TO THE C/P
      
        CLAUSE 2
    
        [1] The vessel to load at one good and safe port/one good and safe charterers' berths Xingang and to discharge at one good and safe port/one good and safe charterers' berth Cadiz and at one good and safe port/one good and safe charterers' berth Bilbao.

        CLAUSE 4
        
        At port of load and at port discharge notice of readiness to be given and accepted in writing and only during the period from 08.00 hours to 17.00 hoursMondays to Sundays…..
 
        高等法院Gross法官认为租约中已经非常清楚地列明了泊位名称,该租约属于泊位租约;因此船舶必须抵达指定泊位,成为到达船arrived ship之后才可以递交有效的NOR,船东索赔滞期费不成立。

        But, if I am wrong about that, then, with great respect, it seems to me that the arbitrators have fallen into further error. It will be recalled that in para. 25 of the award, the arbitrators said that had this been a berth charter party, there would have been no need for a provision such as cl.2[2]. Iregret that I cannot agree. Were this a port charter party, cl. 2[2] may have been unnecessary insofar as it deals with timecounting, in that (provided the anchorage was within the port limits) the vessel would likely have been an arrived ship throughout. But if the charter party is a berth charter party, then the provision in cl.2[2] as to time counting does indeed have a real meaning – absent some such or other express provision, no time would have counted prior to the vessel actually berthing.

        For all these reasons, therefore, I am amply satisfied that the charter party was a berth not a port charter party. The appeal must therefore be allowed with the consequence, as I understand it, that Owners' claim for demurrage must fail.    

       在该案中,装货地点的描述为“berth terminal 4 stevedores Xingang”,已经非常清晰地列明泊位名称,为泊位租约。

        现在再来看看之前曾遇到的,关于合同到底是港口租约还是泊位租约争议的案子。
    
        合同关于卸货港的描述为“Uponcompletion of loading, the vessel shall proceed to one safe berth each of oneor two safe port(s)…”,租家律师引援杨老先生的《装卸时间与滞期费》一书中第70页,声称该描述类似“One safe berth, London”的情况,因此该租约为泊位租约。
  

       那么类似“One safe berth, London”这种描述的,是否必然属于泊位租约呢?
 
       在London Arbitration 1/09案中,法庭拒绝了租家的主张。结合NOR递交的条款WIBON/WIPON/WCCON/WEPON,船舶抵达三个中的其中一个锚地便可视为到达船;及Laytime计算条款,移泊时间扣除不算,法庭最终判该租约为港口租约,纵然合同描述装货位置为“1 SBP Zhenjiang”。

       该案可以参《Laytime and Demurrage》Chapter 3 Commencement of laytime 3.33.

       3.33 In London Arbitration 1/09,32 the tribunal rejected 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 loadat: 1 SBP Zhenjiang.
 
       结合租约中的如下条款:

       Charterers to declare whether vessel shall proceed to the second discharge port at least 10 days prior to ETA at first dischargeport.( But please note that Owners need charterers’ instruction before loading if there is any special order on discharging distribution at discharging ports.)

        及:

         Charterers guarantee minimun draft SWAD at 1st or sole discharge port in China as follows:

         Dalian: Charterers guarantee vessel’s arrival by draft 21.40 m.
If the second discharging port is Bayuquan, Charterers shall arrange lightening at the first discharging port.
 
         租约中描述的目的地均为港口,大连或大连+鲅鱼圈,而非泊位。再结合NOR递交的条件,可以在任何时间递交;Laytime计算的条款,从锚地到泊位的移泊时间扣除不算。很显然,与London Arbitration 1/09案一致,因此该租约为港口租约,非租家及其律师所声称的泊位租约。
 
       再来看看和“One safe berth…”这种描述的相关的先例。

       在The “Laura Prima”案中,该轮在1978年11月27日抵达利比亚的装货位置,与0140递交NOR。但是由于港口压港,船舶未能靠泊装货,直到12月6日1630,延误了9天8小时50分。

       在1979年1月8日,在不损害利益的情况下租家支付了162,158.22美元的滞期费,声称依据合同第6条最后一句话,船东只有权获得341.78美元的滞期费,于是提起仲裁,要求船东退回多付的滞期费161,816.44美元。

       合同相关条款如下:

       6. NOTICE OFREADINESS. Upon arrival at customary anchorage at each port of loading ordischarge, the Master or his agent shall give the Charterer or his agent noticeby letter, telegraph, wireless or telephone that the Vessel is ready to load ordischarge cargo, berth or no berth, and laytime, as hereinafter provided,shall commence upon the expiration of six (6) hours after receipt of such notice, or upon the Vessel’s arrival in berth (i.e., finished mooring when at a sealoadingor discharging terminal and all fast when loading or discharging alongside awharf), whichever first occurs. However, where delay is caused to vesselgetting into berth after giving notice of readiness for any reason over which Charterer has no control, such delay shall not count as used laytime.
 
        9. SAFE BERTHING-SHIFTING. The vessel shall load and discharge at any safe place or wharf, or alongside vessels or lighters reachable on her arrival, which shall be designated and procured by the Charterer, provided the Vessel can proceedthereto, lie at, and depart therefrom always safely afloat, any lighteragebeing at the expense, risk and peril of the Charterer. The Charterer shall havethe right of shifting the Vessel at ports of loading and/or discharge from onesafe berth to another on payment of all towage and pilotage shifting to nextberth, charges for running lines on arrival at and leaving that berth,additional agency charges and expenses, customs overtime and fees, and anyother extra port charges or port expenses incurred by reason of using more thanone berth. Time consumed on account of shifting shall count as used laytimeexcept as otherwise provided in Clause 15.
 
       但是Mocatta法官认为,第6条及第9条应该和租约结合起来看,很明显这是一份港口租约,租约中没有明文规定将港口的拥堵风险放在船东身上。Mocatta法官最终判,在Exxonvoy 69或Asbatankvoy租约格式中,即使装货港描述为“One safe berth…”,租约依然为港口租约。

       -Held, byQ.B. (Com. Ct.) (Mocatta, J.), that (a) cll. 6 and 9 had to be read together in the context of the charter-party as a whole and it was clear that this was aport charter and there was no express provision in the charter that the risk ofcongestion in the port was to be placed on the owners

      该案也可参如下《Laytimeand Demurrage》 Chapter 3 Commencement of Laytime(2016年第7版)。

       5. In The Laura Prima[1980]1 Lloyd’s Rep 466 in the High Court, however, Mocatta J heldat p.468 that in an Exxonvoy 69 or Asbatankvoy form of charter, even where theloading port was declared as “one safe port…”, the charter remained a portcharter.
 
       类似的,在FreightConnect (S) Pte Ltd v Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd [2015]SGCA 37 案中,“AAL Dampier”轮在2012年8月20日抵达南伟港,并于同一天2115hrs递交NOR。由于港口压港,该轮计划8月23日才能靠泊。但是由于货物文件及海关方面的问题,未能办好装货手续,于是另外一条船MV Sea Castle先行靠泊。“AALDampier”轮的靠泊计划顺延至8月27日-28日。

        船东于是找租家索赔从8月20到8月23日之间的时间损失,按detention 25,000美元每天计算,总共75,000美元。

       合同的相关条款如下:

        02) LOADING PORT: 1SBP OWNERS BERTH NANWEI PORT, GUANGDONG, PRCHINA.
...
        04) LAYCAN: 10TH - 20TH, AUG, 2012
        Clause 19 of the first fixture incorporated the terms of a standard formcontract codenamed "Gencon".
 
        VESSEL:
       - AAL tonnage or sub ( intention AAL DAMPIER)
       ...
       PORTS OF LOADING & DISCHARGE:
       - POL: Nanwei Port
       - POD:Singapore
       TIME OF SHIPMENT:
       - 19 - 20.08.2012
       FREIGHT & TERMS:
       - USD 161,000.00 Lumpsum
       - Freight based on Hook / Hook
       - Detention USD 25,000.00 per day pro rata
       GENERAL CONDITIONS:
       - Carrier's Berth and Agents at all ends
  
       在该案中,Chan Sek Keong SJ法官引援The “Kyzikos”案中,Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵的解释,维持初级法院的判决,判该租约为港口租约,20日递交的NOR有效,租家得支付75,000美元的滞留费。

        In this regard, the Judge, in arriving at the finding that the second fixture was a port charter party, had referred to the email which "liststhe ports of loading and discharge as Nanwei and Singapore respectively" [emphasis in original]. In our view, the Judge had applied the correct legal principles as enunciated by Lord Brandon of Oakbrook in The Kyzikos to hold that the second fixture was a port charterparty.
 
      The second fixture was a port charter and the AAL Dampier had tendered a valid NOR on 20 August 2012 when it arrived at Nanwei Port.The time spent waiting for the berth, up to the time when the Appellantrepudiated the second fixture on 23 August 2012, was to be charged as time forwhich detention was due. The Appellant was therefore liable for detention charges amounting to US$75,000.
 
       从以上判例不难看出,类似的“One safe berth X port”的情况,如果在租约中又额外约定了装卸货位置(目的地)为港口的,或者还约定NOR可以在锚地递交,从锚地到泊位的移泊时间扣除不算laytime的。那么结合租约全文来解释,此种描述“One safe berth X port”的租约为港口租约,而非通常情况下认为的“One safe berth, London”,为泊位租约。判断到底是不是泊位租约合同,还得结合租约全文来解释。
 
       对于租船合同,一种为港口租约,一种为泊位租约。在The “Kyzikos”案中,Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵对于这两种租约格式的不同特征进行了分析。
    
       一、港口租约“Port Charters”:
      
        所先,租船的合同目的地是一个指定的港口;
       其次,船舶要被认可已到达港口从而可以递交卸货准备就绪通知书(NOR),其必须满足两个条件。第一个条件是,如果船舶不能立即前往泊位,它应该已经到达了港内一个船舶通常停留的地方等泊。第二个条件是,船舶可立即、有效地供租家差遣。(关于这方面的可以参Reid勋爵的Reid Test及Diplock勋爵把程租合同分为4个不重复没有间隙的连续阶段的解释。)
    
       二、泊位租约“Berth Charters”:
    
       所先,租船的合同目的地是租约指定港口中的一个指定泊位;

       其次,船舶已到达港口,从而可以递交卸货准备就绪通知书(NOR),必须(除非租约另有规定)已经到达了该泊位并准备就绪可以开始卸货。

       First,the contractual destination of the chartered ship is a named port. 

       Secondly,the ship, in order to qualify as having arrived at the port, and therefore entitled to give notice of readiness to discharge, must satisfy two conditions. 

       The first condition is that, if she cannot immediately proceed to a berth, she has reached a position within the port where waiting ships usually lie. The second condition is that she is at the immediate and effective disposition of thecharterers. 
 
       By contrast,the characteristics of a berth charterparty are these. 
      
       First, the contractual destination of the chartered ship is a berth designated by the charterers within a named port. 

      Secondly,the ship, in order to qualify as an arrived ship, and therefore entitled togive notice of readiness to discharge, must (unless the charterparty otherwise provides) have reached the berth and be ready to begin discharging.
 
       从Brandon of Oakbrook勋爵的这个解释,关于船东和租家之间的一般责任分摊可以归纳为如下:

       Portcharter– charterer has greater flexibility in delivery his goods for loading when he has to nominate port or range of ports, but he also allows the vesselto tender Notice of Readiness at the earliest possible moment, i.e. arrival atusual waiting place, thus triggering laytime also at the earlier stage.

       Berth charter– charterer should nominate certain berth with port and accordingly much morelimited in his options as to loading place, on the other hand Notice ofReadiness can be validly tendered only alongside and therefore laytime startsto run at the latest possible moment.

      这类如何递交有效NOR的问题,可参之前的文章,不再此重复。
 
      那么在另一方面,是否可以反过来说“London,One safe berth”这类型的就属于港口租约呢?显然情况也并不是这样。在Stag Line v Board of Trade (1950)The“Cydonia”案中,Devlin法官关于区别泊位租约和港口租约做了如下解释:

        … if the berthat which the vessel ultimately has to load or discharge is named in thecharter-party, she is not an arrived ship until she arrives at the berth, and by named in the charter-party I mean either named in it when originally draftedor named in it by virtue of a power of nomination expressly given by the charter-party. If, on the other hand, there is no power of nomination expressly given so that no berth isnamed therein, and she proceeds to the berth ordered by the charterers merelyby virtue of the implied right which the charterers have to select the loadingberth, then she becomes an arrived ship when she arrives at the place thennamed in the charter-party which is the port.

       如果船舶最终要装货货卸货的泊位是租约中列明的,那么她将不是一到达船直到她抵达该泊位。租约中列明的,包括初始起草的时候列明或者在租约中明确赋予的指定的权利。如果,另一方面,没有权利,没有明确给出泊位具体名称,她只是由租家仅仅通过其默示的租家选择卸货泊位的权利,那么她就变成一抵达船,当她抵达租约中列明的港口。简单点说就是如果是泊位租约,必须在租约中明确说明租家有选择的权利;如果相反,只是一个默示的权利,那么是港口租约。

       租约中关于装货目的地的描述如下:
       Sail andproceed to one or two safe ports East Canada or Newfoundland, place or places as ordered by charterers and/or shippers or so near thereunto as she may safely get.

       Devlin法官认为“place or placesas ordered by charterers”此描述既是租约中明确赋予租家指定泊位的权利,判该租约合同为泊位租约。该案也可以参《Laytime and Demurrage》Chapter 3 Commencementof laytime:

       3.32 Similarly, in Stag Line Ltd v Board of Trade,31 the Court of Appealupheld 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 aberth charter.
 
        在North River Freighters Ltd v President of India(The Radnor) [1955]案中,租约为Gencon格式,装货的目的地的描述为:…one safe berth Dairen…and thereload a full and complete cargo…

       Parker勋爵认为,如果租约描述为“proceed to Dairen and then load at one safeberth”,那么是港口租约,如果没有“as ordered by the charterer”的话。但是本案中,为one safe berth Dairen,并不是港口名称,赋予了租家指定泊位的权利,为泊位租约合同。

        No doubt where the charter is in the form 'That the vessel shall proceed to….' a named port 'and there loadat one safe berth,' the charter is a port charter. The contractual voyage is to the port, albeit that the owners must obey the charterer's instructions as tothe berth nominated by the latter. Here, however, the contractual voyage is notto the port of Dairen, and if necessary I would have held that this is a berth charter.
  
        Jenkins勋爵对于港口租约和泊位租约的区别,关于泊位租约给了如下解释:
        
        Whereas in the case of a berth charter (that is to say, a charter which requires the vessel to proceed for loading to a particular berth either specified in the charter or by the express terms ofthe charter to be specified by the charterer) laydays do not begin torun until the vessel has arrived at the particular berth, is ready to load, andhas given notice to the charterer in manner prescribed by the charter of herreadiness to load.

       也就是说,如果租约要求船舶前往特定的泊位装货,租约中规定的或者租约中明示条款由租家指定的,除非船舶抵达特定的泊位,要不装卸时间无法开始起算。
  
        该案也可以参《Laytime and Demurrage》Chapter 3 Commencement of laytime:

       3.30 Difficult questions of constructioncan 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 30 Parker LJ decided that the words “one safe berth Dairen”expressly gave the charterer the right to name the loading berth, but went onto 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.
 
       在The Finix [1975]案中,Donaldson勋爵强调①具体的泊位名称或者②明确的指定泊位的权利 则为泊位租约;如果仅仅租家指定泊位仅仅是默示的权利,则是港口租约。同时,对于One safe berth, London 或 London, one safe berth 对应的是泊位租约还是港口租约表示存在不确定性;也就是说还得看租约的其它条款。

       It is well settled that where the destination is a named berth or there is an express right to nominate a berth, the charter is a berth charter-party, i.e., the ship is not 'arrived' before she reaches the berth. It is also well settled that where the destination is an area of wider extent, but there is an implied right in the charterer to nominate the berth or other discharging spot, the ship is 'arrived' when she reaches the appropriate part of the wider area and not when she later reaches the discharging berth or spot. 

        But there is a realm of uncertainty where the charter-party provides that discharge shall take place at, for example, (a) 'One safe berth, London' or (b) 'London, one safe berth'. The test is undoubtedly whether on the true construction of the charter-party, the destination is London or the berth. 

       My own view is that in case (a) it is the berth and in case (b) it is London. This point arose in The Radnor and Lords Justices Singleton and Parker seem to have inclined to this view.
 
       在ELOldendorff & Co GMBH Appellants v Tradax Export SA Respondents (The JohannaOldendorff)案中,Diplock勋爵说到:泊位租约是指船舶需前往装货或卸货的位置是单独的一个泊位,该泊位不管是租约中已经列明的还是随后租家行使明确的指定权。

       In the case of two common types of voyage charters, berth charters and dock charters,principles had been formulated by the end of the 19th century as to how theloss occasioned by delay in loading or discharging was to be borne, when thedelay was due to the place at which the vessel was obliged by the terms of thecharter party to load or discharge her cargo, being occupied by other shipping.Berth charters are thosein which the place to which the vessel is to proceed and there load ordischarge is a single berth, either named in the charterparty itself or nominated thereafter by the charterer in the exercise of an express power to do so. Dock charters are those in which the corresponding named ornominated place is a dock containing, it may be, several berths. So charterers and shipowners when fixing the freight under these types of charters knew wherethey stood as respects this risk. They knew when lay time would start to run.But there is another common type of voyage charter, a port charter, in whichthe named or nominated place of loading or discharge is a port containing, itmay be, several docks each with several berths.
 
       在Aldebaran Compania Maritima SAPanama v Aussenhandel AG Zurich (The Darrah )中,Diplock勋爵说到,在泊位租约下,船舶并未完成空放或重载航次除非已经抵达指定的泊位。这个也就是说,泊位租约下,如果租约无相反规定,船舶必须抵达指定泊位才可以递交NOR;之前的延误风险将由船东自己承担,除非此延误是由于租家违约造成的。
 
       Under a berth charter the vessel does not complete the loading or the carrying voyage until the vessel reaches the designated berth. So anytime spent waiting for the berth to become available serves only to prolong the voyage stage and in the absence of express provision to the contrary any loss occasioned to the shipowner by reason of the delay falls on him alone. Under aport charter on the other hand the voyage stage is completed upon arrival ofthe vessel at a usual waiting place within the limits of the port. If becauseof congestion the charterer cannot designate a berth to which she can proceed immediately, laytime nevertheless starts to run against the charterer and if,as a consequence of her being compelled to wait until a berth becomesavailable, the charterer is unable to complete the loading or discharge within the stipulated laytime he must pay demurrage for any additional time used to complete it. In the case of a port charter it is only when the carrying vesselis compelled to wait her turn at a place outside the limits of the port that the time spent waiting for a berth would operate to prolong the voyage stage and to cast the loss occasioned by the delay upon the shoulders of the shipowner. 
 
       总结:

       通过对以上列举的一些先例的简单介绍,对于泊位租约描述的典型特征,如果租约无相反规定的话,那么可以归纳为如下几个方面。

       一、Onesafe X berth X port

       在这种情况下,如The “Merida”案,charterers’ berth terminal 4stevedores,这种在列明港口中已经列明泊位名称的,则可算为泊位租约;如果租约无相反规定,那么船舶必须抵达租约中列明泊位才能称为到达船,在一切准备就绪之后才可以递交NOR。
如果是One safe X berth这种仅仅列明泊位名称的,也是泊位租约。
 
       二、Onesafe berth X port

       1) 如果租约中包含了明确的指定泊位的权利(contains anexpress right to nominate the berth),如The“Radnor”案,那么为泊位租约。

       2)如果租约中,并没有包含明确的指定泊位的权利,那么如LondonArbitration 1/09案-1SBP Zhenjiang,The“AAL Dampier”案-1SBP Owners’ berth Nanwei Port,及The “Laura Prima”案,那么必须结合租约全文,包括NOR递交条款,Laytime计算条款来解释,如果作了相应的描述,那么这种情况下,将解释为港口租约。
 
       三、Onesafe X port X berth

       如果装卸货的目的地为列明港口,而对应地租家有明确的泊位选择权(contains anexpress right to nominate the berth),如The“Cydonia”案,目的地位Sail and proceed to one or two safeports East Canada or Newfoundland, place or places as ordered by charterers。这种情况下,如果合同无相反规定,那么仍然应该解释为泊位租约。
再结合The“Kyzikos”案及The“Finix”案,典型的泊位租约特征就是,合同目的地是指定港口中的一个指定泊位,或者目的地是指定港口,虽未列明泊位名称但有明确的租家指定泊位权利的;那么在这种情况下,如果租约无相反规定,应该解释为泊位租约合同。
这些港口名,泊位名称或者租家指定泊位的权利必须明确地写入初始合同,如《Laytimeand Demurrage 》中所说的:
        
         3.5 Where such a formula is used, the effect is as if the berths,docks or ports, as the case may be, which are subsequently nominated by thecharterer, were written into the original fixture.

        对于泊位租约的风险,可以参Diplock勋爵在E L Oldendorff & Co GmbH vTradax Export SA案中所说的,如果指定的泊位被其他船舶占用,则该船仍在航行阶段(没有结束一个阶段不可以递交NOR),在泊位附近等待,直到该船可用为止,所花的时间由将船东自己承担。

       Where a single berth was specified in the charterparty as being the place of loading orof discharge, the loading voyage or the carrying voyage did not end until the vessel was at that very berth. Until then no obligation could lie upon thecharterer to load the cargo, or to receive it, as the case might be. If the specified berth were occupied by other shipping, the vessel was still at the voyage stage while waiting in the vicinity of the berth until it became available, and time so spent was at the shipowner’s expense.
 
        因此,在订立程租合同的时候,应该清楚了解港口租约和泊位租约之间的差异,并使用清晰无歧义的措辞来表达租约的真实意图。在判断租约到底是港口租约还是泊位租约的时候,不能从单个方面考虑,应该结合租约全文,从各条款之间的逻辑来判断。
 
参考资料:
 
1、《Laytime and Demurrage》

海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号航运佬)

智慧如你,不想发表一点想法吗 ~
海运圈聚焦客户端
扫描下载
海运圈最好的资讯平台
网站地图
关注我们
  • 新浪微博