从The“Mozart”案看FM条款下给予通知的必要性问题

2018-01-281134


  【摘要】在组成不可抗力的三大要素中并没有要求给予通知,但如果在不可抗力条款中说明了如果发生不可抗力事件需给予通知,那该通知是否是构成条件呢?本文通过对The“Mozart”案来说说这个问题。

  【关键词】Force Majeure、通知、不可抗力、条件

  在之前The“Radauti”一文中,提到了我国的《合同法》,其中第118条规定如下:

  第一百一十八条 当事人一方因不可抗力不能履行合同的,应当及时通知对方,以减轻可能给对方造成的损失,并应当在合理期限内提供证明。

  这里要求,发生不可抗力事件无法履行合同时,应当及时通知对方。那么这个通知是否是组成不可抗力的必要要素呢?参General Construction Limited v Chue Wing & CoLtd and another [2013] UKPC30案,Mance勋爵在第12段判决中说到:

  12. French and Mauritian case-law have traditionally identified three constituent elements of an event of forcemajeure: it must be (i) extérieur or étranger à la chose, (ii) imprévisible and (iii) irrésistible.

  法国和毛里求斯的判例法传统上确定了不可抗力事件的三个组成要素:它必须是(i)外部的,(ii)不可预见的,(iii)不可抗拒的。显然,这里并没有说给予通知是不可抗力事件的组成要素之一。

  但如果在不可抗力条款中,列明了需给予通知,如笔者遇到的合同条款:

  …The party whose performance of any obligation is affected, or who has reason to believe such performance may be affected, by reason of any of the events referred to above shall, as promptly as possible, give written notice thereof to the other party concerned, and shall as promptly as possible thereafter notify the other party concerned, in writing,..

  这里说如因履行上述任何事件而影响履行义务或有理由相信履行义务会受到影响的一方应尽快书面通知另一方。那么对于这个通知的要求是否构成了不可抗力的条件?即,想引援不可抗力来免除责任的一方,必须给予另一方通知。

  接下来就来看看The“Mozart”案。

  一、基本案情

  在1979年9月19日,出租人将Mozart轮(以下简称“该轮”)租给了Ferrum G.m.b.H.(以下简称“承租人”),去执行从Topco Bulk Marine Terminal(在Arthur港附近,以下简称“Topco”)装石油焦炭到鹿特丹卸的程租航次任务。

  一家名为Otto Wolff Inc.(Wolff)的公司是承租人在美国公司独家委托的代理,从事购买各种固体燃料,包括石油焦。根据这家公司与Topco达成的协议,后者同意接收来自铁路车辆的石油焦炭,将其粉碎并在必要时储存,最后在Topco工厂装船。该协议规定,Topco应该是协议各方面的独立承包商,而不是Wolff的代理人或雇员。

  Topco码头的一个重要设备是一台堆垛机,它是一种用于运输商品并存放到船上的大型移动输送带。

  1979年12月底该轮正在装货的过程中,一条输送带被粘性物质堵塞,输送带停止运转。几个小时后,装载恢复,但很快,皮带又停了下来。皮带本身和某些辅助钢材的工作受到严重损害。结果,直到最初的故障发生后四天,机器才恢复运行,重新开始装货。

  在这些延误期间,无论是承租人还是代表他们行事的任何人都没有按照正式通知的形式按合同条款的要求发出任何通知,声明已经发生故障,要么是承租人要求扣除时间。

  出租人事后主张船舶滞期,承租人认为他们可以引援合同条款免除责任。争议于是提交仲裁。

  合同是美式威尔士煤炭租船合同(Americanized Welsh CoalCharter)范本,其中第3条款规定如下:

  3. The cargo to be loaded into Vessel at the rate of seeClause 22 per running day, of twenty-four hours consecutive commencing weather permitting 24 hours after Vessel tenders and is ready to load, unless sooner commenced whereupon time is to commence but only time actually used tocount and written notice is given of the Vessel's being completely discharged of inward cargo and ready to load, such notice to be given at any timeday/night Shinc .Any time lost through riots, strikes, lockouts, or any dispute between mastersand men, occasioning a stoppage of pitmen trimmers or other hands connected with the working or delivery of the petcoke for which the Vessel is stemmed, or by reason of accidents to mines or machinery obstructions, embargo or delay onthe Railway or in the Dock; or by reason of fire, floods, frosts, fogs, storms or any cause whatsoever beyond the control of the Charterer affecting mining, transportation, deliveryand/or loading of the petcoke not to be computed as part of the loading time(unless any cargo be actually loaded during such time). In the event of any stoppage or stoppages arising from any of these causes continuing for the period of six running days from the time of the Vessel's being ready to load,this Charter shall become null and void; provided, however, that no cargo shall have been shipped on board the Vessel previous to such stoppage or stoppages.In case of holiday, or partial stoppage of Colliery, Collieries or Railway fromany or either of the aforementioned cases, the laydays to be extended proportionately to the diminution of output arising from such partial holidayor stoppage. If longer detained, Charterer to pay US$18.000 -U.S.Currency per running day (orpro rata for part thereof) demurrage. If sooner dispatched, Vessel to payCharterer US$9.000 -U.S.Currency per day (or pro rata for part thereof) dispatch money for working timesaved. No deduction of time shall be allowed for stoppage, unless due notice be given at the time to the Master or Owner.

  二、争议焦点

  提交仲裁的,主要涉及两个争议问题。首先,承租人是否根据仲裁员认定的事实,凭借租船合同的明文规定免除责任。其次,如果该条款原则上适用,那么是否由于他们没有按照条款的规定发出通知,承租人将不得依赖它?关于第一个问题,仲裁员Michael Mabbs和仲裁员Clifford Clark作出了对出租人有利的裁决,该例外条款不适用。仲裁员John Besman贝斯曼持相反意见,作出了对承租人有利的裁决。尽管如此,仲裁员还是非常适当地考虑了这个问题,三人都认为,如果适用例外情况,那么承租人不会因没有发出通知而丧失依靠它的权利。

  但最终,在1984年2月28日,三名仲裁员作出了对出租人有利的最终裁决,在延误期间可以承租人得支付滞期费。

  承租人认为这个条款在其真正的解释上足够宽泛,应免除赔偿滞期费的责任。出租人交叉上诉,争辩说,无论条款的含义如何,缺乏适当的通知对承租人的辩护是致命的。法院许可对这一裁决提出上诉。

  三、法官判决

  本案中的租船合同以美国威尔士煤炭租船合同的印刷版本为依据,各种修订版本均以打字稿形式出现。但合同第3条,经过修改。Mustill法官认为,这个条款的措辞是不精确的。这在过去引起了一些问题,现在在那些试图解释它的人当中有不同的意见也就不足为奇了。

  Mustill法官他首先总结引起争端的事实,该轮从Topco装载石油焦炭到鹿特丹卸。依裁决除了所附的理由,仲裁员认定装货过程中发生的故障这是由于Topco部分设备维修不善造成的。除合同第3条,Mustill法官认为以下条款也是重要的:

  4. The Cargo to be loaded and spout trimmed by men appointed by the Charterers free of risk and expense to the vessel.

  8. The Cargo to be discharged by Consignee at Port of Discharge, free of expense and risk to the Vessel, at the rate of see Clause 22 . . . In case of strikes, lockouts, civil commotions, or any other causes or accidents beyond the control of the Consignee which prevent or delay the discharging, such time is not to count unless the Vessel is already on demurrage.

  Mustill法官首先谈法院面临的第一个问题,即堆堆垛机中断造成的时间损失是否属于例外情况。这个条款的两个部分是在仲裁过程中所依赖的。首先,认为这些事件构成了“机械事故”。但仲裁员驳回了这一论点,并且在本次上诉的聆讯中没有被提。第二个问题是,这个故障符合以下措辞的表述:

  . . . any cause whatsoever beyond the control of the Charterer affecting . . . loading of the Petcoke.

  这个被大多数仲裁人拒绝的论点构成了本次上诉的基础。

  在Mustill法官看来,这个论点必须分两个阶段来考虑。所说的话是否意味着与他们所说的不同的东西,或者是否有一些狭义的意思;如果要从字面上理解,基于仲裁员所认定的事实,是否故障是在“承租人的控制之外”?

  总而言之,仲裁员坚持认为该条款不能按照其字面意义理解的理由如下:(1)如果这些措辞是打算按照他们的表面含义进行处理,那么在这些措辞之前的具体例外将是多余的。(2)同样,如果这样解释的话,该条款将具有无法接受的广泛的操作,因为它实际上将涵盖承租人本身不是托运人的所有情况。(3)这个条款应该对承租人作不利解释,因为他们是提出并且试图从中受益的一方。(4)该条款在市场上被理解为具有较窄的内涵。(5)初步看来,针对承租人装卸时间连续不断计算。

  In summary, the arbitrators' grounds for holding that theclause cannot properly be read according to its literal sense, were asfollows:- (1) The specific exceptions preceding the words in question would be redundant if these words were intended to be taken at their face value. (2)Equally, the clause would have an unacceptably wide operation if so construed, since it would in practice cover all circumstances where the charterer was not himself the shipper. (3) The clause should be construed against the charterers,since they were the party who proposed it and seek to benefit from it. (4) The clause is understood in the market as having a narrower connotation. (5) Prima facie, laytime runs continuously against the charterer.

  Mustill法官不接受这些论点。他认为,确实,如果字面意义占上风,那么具体例外可能是多余的。不过,法院经常表示,在解释商业文件时,冗余的论点并不重要。而且,公认的且对于租船合同的起草者列出他认为最具实际重要性的具体危险,这是非常合理的技术,以便确信那些对他们而言是毫无疑问的,然后跟着一篮子条款,旨在处理剩下的问题。Mustill法官认为他对这个条款几乎在所有情况下都可能运作的论点也没有留下深刻的印象。正如代表承租人所指出的那样,美国威尔斯煤炭租船合同形式的总体形式及其责任终止条款及其对承租人和收货人的参考而非托运人的强烈建议,承租人是他托运人自己。在这种情况下,如仲裁员所承认的那样,该条款的运作范围将会比较狭窄。但即使情况并非如此,Mustill法官认为他也看不出狭义的解释的争辩是正确的。如果该条款得到广泛的表达,就必须广泛应用。

  I do not accept these arguments. It is true that the specific exceptions are likely to be redundant, if the literal meaning prevails. The Court has, however, often said that arguments from redundancy are of little weight when construing a commercial document. Moreover, it is a well recognized and perfectly sensible technique for the draftsman to set out the specific perils which he considers to be of most practical importance, so as tomake quite sure that there is no doubt about them, and then to follow with a"sweeping-up" provision, designed to deal with the remainder. Nor amI impressed by the argument that the clause is likely to operate in almost all circumstances. As was pointed out on behalf of the charterers, the generalshape of the Americanized Welsh Coal Charter form, with its cesser clause andits reference throughout to charterers and consignees, but not to shippers,strongly suggests that is was conceived for use in cases where the charterer ishimself the shipper. In such a situation, as the arbitrators recognized, theclause would have a comparatively restricted field of operation. But even ifthis were not so, I cannot see that the argument justifies a narrow interpretation. If the clause is expressed widely, it must be applied widely.

  Mustill法官认为虽然他同意这个条款应该对承租人作出不利解释,不是因为对他们不利,而是因为他们主张从例外中获得利益。除非有一个可靠的替代解释,比所依赖的替代解释更窄,否则不能采用这种方法。仲裁员显然认为有一个是因为他们提到了市场对该条款的理解(可能会指出,他们的共同仲裁员Besman不同意这种理解),但是他们对该狭义的解释没有任何表达。Mustill法官认为就他而言,他想不出它会是什么。

  Equally, although I accept that the clause should be construed against the charterers - not because they were proferentes but because they claim the benefit of the exception -this approach cannot be adopted unless there is a credible alternative construction, narrower than the one relied upon. The arbitrators evidently considered that there was one for they referred to the market understanding of the clause (an understanding which, it may be noted, was not shared by their co-arbitrator, Mr. Besman), but they nowhere give expression to that narrower meaning. For my part, I cannot think what it could be.

  最后,Mustill法官认为虽然从表面上看,装卸时间不间断计算,受例外条款的约束,这个原则没有说明这个条款的含义。如果例外情况被广泛表达,那么由合同产生的装卸时间的中断相应地也是很宽广的。

  Finally, although again I accept, prima facie, that laytime runs continuously, subject to exceptions, this principle sheds no light on the meaning of the clause. If the exception is expressed widely, the interruptions to laytime created by the contract are correspondingly wide.

  因此,假定这个条款必须被理解为它所表达的意思,那么是否机械故障在承租人的控制之外?仲裁员认为,这并不是认为承租人与Topco之间的联系足够亲近,因为Topco的疏忽未能妥善维护工厂,这可能可归咎于承租人。Mustill法官认为他在这点上再次不同意。他认为第4条对这个论点并没有帮助。第4条的目的是为了减轻出租人对装载任务的责任。为了合同第3条款的目的,并不表示在装货行为发生之前或之中发生的任何错误,都将被视为承租人的“过错”。他也不认为“过错”可归咎于承租人,以仲裁员的理由来说,“他们不能逃避自己(替代)的疏忽”。Wolff与Topco保持着密切的关系。没有任何迹象表明他们与Topco工厂的维护和运营有任何关系,与Topco的协议无权以任何方式干涉。就这样,Mustill法官认为他看不出Topco方面的错误怎么可以被看作是Wolff方面的错,尤其是租家方面。Mustill法官认为单纯的事实,可以说Topco是租船合同关系的“货方”而不是“船方”,这足以造成仲裁员所提到的替代责任。

  Assuming,therefore, that the clause must be read as meaning what it says, was the breakdown of the machinery beyond the control of the charterers? The arbitrators considered that it was not, taking the view that the link between the charterers and TOPCO was sufficiently close for TOPCO'S negligence in failing to maintain the plant properly could be ascribed to the charterers.Here again I must disagree. Clause 4 does not, in my view, assist the argument.The purpose is to relieve the owners from the responsibility for the task of loading. But it does not follow that anything which goes wrong before or during the act of loading is to be treated as the charterers' "fault" for the purpose of cl. 3.Nor do I consider that a "fault" can be ascribed to the charterers onthe ground that, in the words of the arbitrators' reasons, "they cannot escape from their own (vicarious) negligence". Wolff were in anarms-length relationship with TOPCO. There is no suggestion that they had anything to do with the maintenance and operation of TOPCO's plant, and their agreement with TOPCO gave them no right to interfere in any way. This being so,I cannot see how fault on the part of TOPCO can be treated as fault on the partof Wolff, and a fortiori on the part of the charterers. The mere fact that TOPCO were, so to speak, on the "cargo side" of the charter-party relationship rather than the "ship's side" is not, in my judgment,sufficient to create a vicarious responsibility of the kind to which the arbitrators refer.

  因此,Mustill法官判定,仲裁员Besman所赞成的解释优于多数人所采纳的解释,并且在这方面承租人上诉成功。

  Accordingly I conclude that the interpretation favoured by Mr. Besman is to be preferred to the one adopted by the majority, and that to this extent the charterers' appeal succeeds.

  然而,这不是事情的结局,还有第二个问题。Mustill法官认为,这是比较困难的。 这里的问题是因为交叉上诉是在与仲裁员相同的基础上与法院辩论的。从仲裁员的理由可以清楚地看到,既不是承租人也不是看来不以他们名义行事的任何人都没有按该条款要求以正式的形式发出通知,要么是机械已经发生故障,要么是承租人将声称扣除装卸时间计算。仲裁员认为这是一个技术性的违约行为,然后他们继续认定违约行为并没有剥夺船长进行调查的机会,这将有助于出租人仲裁,还是会对出租人造成损害。

  Mustill法官认为船长他所能做的任何事情都已经得到了通知,在法官看来,船长他也可以做到这一点。因此,如果仲裁员认为该问题是一个实际问题,这并不是因为他们对第一个争议的裁定,那么由于承租人的技术性违约,出租人将没有任何损害赔偿可追偿。

  在当前上诉的听证会上,当事人双方都不想支持这种处理方式。第40行和第41行所得出的共同点,给予通知的义务不是强制性的,如果证明是由于违约而产生损害赔偿,而是承租人利用条款中列出的例外情况的先决条件。因此,问题不在于出租人是否因没有通知而受到损害,而在于是否给予了适当的通知,如果不是,是否有任何特殊的情况使得承租人有权依靠例外。

  It is now common ground that lines 40 and 41 create, not an enforceable obligation to give a notice, which will found in damages if any are proved to have resulted from a breach, but a condition precedent to the charterers' right to take advantage of the exceptions set out in the clause. The question is therefore not whether the shipowner has suffered damage through the absence of a notice, but whether due notice was given and, if not, whether there is any special circumstance which entails that the charterers are, nevertheless,entitled to rely on the exception.

  Mustill法官认为在这个基础上,出现以下问题:1.以什么方式可以“给”通知? 2.要通知什么?尤其是,是否必须注意到有一个例外可依靠?对中断装卸时间的运行是否是足够的(如出租人所主张通知发生例外情况的事件)?3.一个“到期”通知是否可以恰当地包含没有通知?4.如果没有给出适当的通知,如果船长或出租人已经知道如果给出的通知中必须包含的事实,那么是否足够?

  第一个问题没有被论证。律师和仲裁员认为(Mustill法官认为相信是正确的),“适当的通知”涉及由承租人或代表承租人提交的具有这种性质或在这种情况下作出的通知,以表明给予为了租船合同的目的。信息由某些人不经意传递而其在传递中是个陌生人,这是不够的。

  Mustill法官认为第二个问题更困难。一种可能性是将“适当的通知”与条款几乎在其之前的“停工”一词联系起来。不幸的是,这种简单的方法是行不通的。说白了就是没有意识到只是停止装货,因为船长已经知道了。因此,人们通过条款来回顾使用“停工”这个词的地方。事实上,这个词在三个地方是可以找到的,但是从各自的角度来看,它们显然不可能成为通知规定的主题。首先在第30行使用这个词 “of pitmen trimmers or other hands…”这只不过是条款中列举的众多例外风险之一,为什么租船合同的起草者本来希望通知的要求适用于这个特定的一个,而没有其他的理由。这个词再次出现在第34行。这不可能是相关的,因为有关条款的一部分涉及到租船合同变为“无效”的情况,而通知则被称为是“扣减时间”的先决条件。最后,还提到了“部分中断”,这是对日常生活有影响的两类事件之一:但是这里的例外危害的效果不是允许扣除时间,而是按比例延长装卸时间。此外,“部分停工”只涉及“Colliery, Collieries or Railways”,这使得它不太可能成为通知要求的唯一标的事项。Mustill法官认为,事实上,这个条款如此混乱和不精确,以至于传统的口头分析没地方可分析。

  因此,必须询问包括第40-41行的目的是什么。Mustill法官认为,必须确保尽量减少争议,在事件发生后以及出租人进行调查为时已晚的情况下,承租人无法依靠例外风险。然后必须问,为了实现这个目的,是否有必要在每一种情况下都发出通知,不仅是事件发生本身,而且也是因为承租人试图依靠这一事实作为理由而不支付滞期费。Mustill法官认为没有发现任何这样的必要性。假设,装货停止,否则不会有“任何时间损失”。船长(知道停工)或船东,也被告知发生的事情。他们还需要什么?正如仲裁员所说:

  一旦装货停顿,船长总是会认为,根据租船合同执行这样一个严格的例外条款,可能会出现停租的情况。

  One must therefore enquire what was the purpose of includinglines 40-41. It must, I think, have been to ensure that disputes were minimized by ensuring that the charterer could not seek to rely on an excepted peril,after the event and at a time when it was too late for the shipowner to carryout an investigation. One must then ask whether it would be necessary, in order to serve this purpose, that notice should be given in every case, not only of the occurrence itself, but also of the fact that the charterer was proposing to rely on it as a reason for not paying demurrage. I do not find any such necessity. Ex hypothesi, loading is stopped, for otherwise there would not be"any time lost". The master (who knows about the stoppage) or the owners, are also given notice of the occurrence which has brought it about.What more do they need? As the arbitrators said:

  Once loading halted, the ship's master would always supposethat an off-hire situation might well be in being when performing under aCharterparty carrying such a stringent exception clause.

  Mustill法官认为没有理由认为该条款是要求通知书包含出租人争论的附加特征。然而,这并不足以使承租人摆脱第40-41行,因为他们和代表他们的任何人都没有根据该条款发出任何通知。因此,如果他们要逃避责任,他们在上述第三或第四个问题上也必须是正确的。由于这些联系紧密,并且出现了非常类似的事实,所以一起看是很方便的。Mustill法官认为,从本质上来说,承租人的情况是,船长知道船停工了,这是由于装货场发生机械事故造成的,这个事故不能归咎于承租人或其代理人。这样的话,在这种情况下,一个到期的通知是不会有任何通知的,因为在一个通知中没有任何“到期的”,没有告诉船长他还不知道的任何事。另外,作为一个法律问题,承租人不能因为没有进行无用的手续而受到损害。

  This is not, however, sufficient in itself to enable the charterers to escape from lines 40-41, since neither they nor anyone acting ontheir behalf gave any notice under the clause. Accordingly, if they are to escape liability, they must also be right on the third or the fourth of the questions stated above. Since these are closely linked and turn on very similarissues of fact, it is convenient to look at them together. In essence, the case for the charterers is that the master knew that the ship was stopped and that this was due to a mechanical accident in the loading yard, an accident whichcould not be attributed to the charterers or their agents. This being so, a due notice would, in the circumstances, be no notice, since there could be nothing "due" in a communication which told the master nothing which he did not already know. Alternatively, as a matter of law, the charterers cannot be prejudiced by their failure to perform a useless formality.

  这些论据中的每一个都取决于证明船长已经从所给予的通知中知道了所有东西。Mustill法官认为在这里,仲裁员的理由产生了问题。1979年“仲裁法”第1(5)条要求仲裁员说明其裁决的理由。众所周知,“仲裁法”的其中一个目的就是废除前一种做法,即指定特殊案件的仲裁员必须以细致和正式的形式查找事实,帮助或妨碍大量提交各方对他应该提出的结论。在新制度下,仲裁员的裁决理由可以非正式的方式阐明,以叙述的形式向当事人解释其为何已经胜利或失败,同样将法院问题告知法院在上诉的情况下。毫无疑问,这个程序在很多情况下可以节省许多不必要的浪费和延误。另一方面,它不是没有缺点。如果仲裁员面对一个以上的法律问题,一个仲裁员的实质性或背景是由另一个仲裁员的观点决定的,仲裁员将裁定第一点,说明他认为与裁决有关的事实以及如何解决其后果,然后,如果有其他意见仍然与他的裁定相关,那就着手做出裁决,并说明与之相关的事实。但是,如果他对第一点的裁定使其他问题变得多余,1(5)作出裁决的理由,不能要求他在没有裁决的地方作出裁决

  Mustill法官认为“1979年法令”的这种解读,当然可以解除仲裁员的劳苦,就法律在法律问题上可能形成的所有可能意见作出解释,并说明所有可能与他们有关的事实。实际上,法院坚决阻止了仲裁员和在他们面前出庭的律师从事这样的企业。在很多情况下,这很好地工作。然而,当仲裁员形成一种法律观点时,如果某些事实可能是重要的,或者无关紧要地讨论第二个问题,如果他对第一个问题的观点是不同:因为如果法院在第一个问题上与仲裁员有所不同,则可能没有确定上诉所需要的事实。那么就需要把这个裁决发还给仲裁员进一步的调查结果,这个过程可能会比特殊情况下的旧程序更为拖延。仲裁员已经认识到了这一点,并且通常不包括一些额外的调查结果,以防法院认为它们有用。然而,不可避免地,仲裁员在作出事实主要认定时所采用的特殊性,将不会被说明。

  Mustill法官认为,本案例说明了这个问题。在发现该例外情况不适用的情况下,由于没有通知,承租人是否被排除依靠这个问题是没有意义的。尽管如此,仲裁员还是按照Mustill法官的判断,继续处理这个问题。Mustill法官认为可以理解的是,仲裁员做得很简单,没有特殊性。而且,他们只是把自己认为这个条款的事实说成是创造了追索损害赔偿的潜在的权利。其结果是,现在法院对仲裁员的意见和仲裁员的意见都有所不同,很难从理由中提出决定申诉的必要事实。有一次,似乎唯一的办法就是根据第二条的规定,把进一步理由的陈述归还给裁决,依据1979年法令第1(5)条。然而,它发现有关的证据是以书面形式提出的,因此Mustill法官认为他应该看到这些陈述,以得出任何推论是适当的。这使得能够陈述以下事实:

  1. 12月30日发生了一些短暂的停工。船长认为这是由于装载设备故障造成的。

  2.当船长在12月31日发现最后一次停泊后装载没有恢复时,他要求解释,岸上的人员告诉他们发生了故障,并且维修工作已经到位。

  他在这个和其后的日子里要求进一步的信息,从来没有收到任何额外的细节:只有Topco的总经理告诉他,停工是由于最近的降雨造成的。

  3.船长从来没有被告知,租船人试图去争辩在停工时间停租计算装卸时间。

  船长的声明继续说,如果他被告知承租人停止计算装卸时间,他会通知他的船东,以便他们可以进行调查。Mustill法官认为对他而言没有必要找到任何与此有关的事实,因为很明显,如果出租人立即进行调查,他们能够做的不过是提供能支持无论如何最终在仲裁中更好的证据:即故障是由于Topco的疏忽造成的。因此,Mustill法官认为仲裁员实际上是非常正确地认定,没有通知并没有实际的结果。

  The master's statement went on to say that if he had been told that the charterers were suspending laytime, he would have notified his owners so that they could make investigations. It is not necessary for me to find any fact relating to this, because it is evident that if the owners had made prompt investigations, they would have been able to do no more than produce evidence to support the case which in any event they ultimately made good in the arbitration: namely, that the breakdown was due to the negligence of TOPCO.This being so, I consider that the arbitrators were quite right to find, ineffect, that the absence of a notice had no practical result.

  鉴于这些事实,回到第三和第四个问题,Mustill法官认为,这两个问题的结论都是一样的。经过一些最初的犹豫之后,他接受了承租人的论点,即要求给予适当的通知-在他看来意味着不超过一个适当的通知-不能理解为要求承租人通知船长通过将自己的观察与现场人员向他传达的信息结合起来,船长他本已经非常了解的。

  而且,Mustill法官认为即使他认为这个观点是错的,他仍然会认为,在本案中这种特定的情况下,没有通知并不排除承租人可依赖例外条款。基于上诉法院Barrett Bros. (Taxis) Ltd. v. Davies, [1966] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1案中,多数人的判决得出这一结论。该案涉及的是一项摩托车保险,其条件1规定被保险人应在事故发生后尽快以书面形式向特定地址提供详细资料,并应立即通知任何有关的起诉。条件13规定适当遵守所有条件是承销商责任的先决条件。在涉及摩托车和出租车的事故发生后,被保险人本人并没有向保险公司发出通知,但出租车司机的律师却这样做。保险公司随即向被保险人发出索赔表,并将其完成并退回。随后,他收到了打算提出起诉的通知,并传唤出庭到裁判法院。他没有把这些转交给保险公司。不过,后者是由警方告知起诉和即将举行的听证。然后保险人写信给被保险人,询问他为什么没有通知他们诉讼,因为他们希望安排他的辩护。被保险人承认内疚但依保险提出索赔。保险公司声称保险人违反了条件1进行抗辩,拒绝承担责任。

  Moreover, even if I were wrong in this view I would still consider that, in the particular circumstances of this case, the absence of a notice does not exclude reliance on the exceptions. I base this conclusion on the decison of themajority of the Court of Appeal Barrett Bros. (Taxis) Ltd. v. Davies, [1966] 2Lloyd's Rep. 1.

  上诉法院认为,保险公司的这一辩护不成立。有三个原因。

  首先,保险公司的投诉书放弃了遵守条件1的必要性。如果保险人告诉被保险人他们仍然希望他通知起诉并转发传票,他将会及时这样做。这封信的效果是暗示他不需要这样做。法院全体三名法官都同意这一意见。

  First, the insurers' letter of complaint waived the need for compliance with condition 1. If the insurers had told the insured that they still wished him to give notice of the prosecution and to forward the summons,he would have been in time to do so. The effect of the letter was to intimate that he need not do so. All three members of the Court agreed with this opinion.

  其次,用Denning勋爵的话来说:

  保险公司有所有相关的事实,并免除了被保险人做更多,看到他们已经收到警方的消息,要求摩托车司机自己给他们自己的信息是无用的。法律决不会强迫一个人去做那些没用的和不必要的事情。

  the insurers had all the relevant facts, and that absolved the - [insured] - from doing more. Seeing that they had received the information from the police, it would be a futile thing to require the motorcyclist himself to give them the self-same information.The law never compels a person to do that which is useless and unnecessary.

  第三,再次引用Denning勋爵的话:

  除了这两点,我会更广泛地讨论。保险中加入了这个条件1,以便对保险人提供保护,使他们能够及时了解事故情况以及由此引发的任何诉讼。如果他们从另一个来源获得所有的实质性知识,以至于被保险人自己没有告诉他们,他们完全不会受到损害偏见,那么他们就不能依靠这个条件来对抗索赔。

  A part from these two points, I would put the matter more broadly. This condition 1 was inserted in the policy so as to afford a protection to the insurers so they should know in good time about the accident and any proceedings consequent on it.If they obtain all the material knowledge from another source so that they are not prejudiced at all by the failure of the insured himself to tell them,then they cannot rely on the condition to defeat the claim.

  在那个案中,Danckwerts勋爵同意主事官的判决,但是Salmon勋爵对第二第三点观点持有相反意见。

  如果有必要就第三点及主事法官提出的最广泛的主张作出判定,Mustill法官认为,可以冒昧地分享MacKenna法官在Farrell v.Federated Employers Insurance Association Ltd., [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 129案中所做的保留。然而,这并不是必要的,因为第二种情况要狭隘得多。这是直接的,对本法院有约束力。Mustill法官认为看不出不在这里应用的任何理由。船长已经收到了所有的信息,如果已经正确地解释了这个租船合同,在通知中就包含了这些信息。因此,Mustill法官认为通过解释“适当通知”这个词的方式,以及通过应用Barrett v. Davies案所确立的法律,来断定承租人不能被排除依靠例外条款。因此,在这一点上得出了与仲裁员相同的意见,尽管路线不同。Mustill法官认为他很高兴能够这样做,因为在他看来,任何其他的结果都会违背商业合理性。

  最终,Mustill法官判,承租人有权依赖第3条中所包含的例外,对抗滞期费主张,承租人上诉成功。

  If it were necessary to base a decision on the third and broadest of the propositions advanced by the Master of the Rolls, I would venture to share the reservations expressed by Mr. Justice MacKenna in Farrellv. Federated Employers Insurance Association Ltd., [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 129;[1970] 1 W.L.R. 498. It is not, however, necessary to enter into this, for the second ground is much narrower. It is directly in point, and binding on this Court. I see no reason not to apply it here. The master had received all the information which, if I have correctly construed the charter, would have been contained in the notice.This being so, I conclude both by way of interpreting the words "due notice", and by applying the law as stated in Barrett v. Davies, that the charterers are not precluded from relying on the exception. I have thus arrived at the same opinion as the arbitrators on this point, albeit by a different route. I am glad to have been able to do so, for any other outcome would,in my opinion, have been contrary to the commercial sense of the situation.

  In the result, therefore, I hold that the charterers are entitled to rely on the exception contained in cl. 3 to defeat the claim for demurrage, and that the appeal should be allowed.

  总结:

  在本案中,因为码头装货设备故障导致装货中断,出租人认为此延误的时间应持续不间断计算装卸货时间,但承租人认为可以凭借合同条款,第3条中的例外来免除责任;出租人提起仲裁。Mustill法官根据仲裁员所查证认定的事实,认为,船长在现场已经清楚知道了事实,如通知中所得提供的所有信息。依据先例,Barrett v. Davies案所确立的法律原则,认为完全没有理由不应用到本案。最终判承租人有权依靠合同条款中的例外来免除责任,承租人上诉成功;纵然承租人并没有按照合同条款要求给予通知。

  在Mustill法官提到的Barrett Bros. (Taxis) Ltd. v. Davies, [1966] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1案中,其中条件1和条件13,规定如下:

  Condition 1 said:

  The Insured shall give full particulars in writing to MILESTONE MOTOR POLICIES, LONDON HOUSE . . . as soon as possible after the occurrence of anyaccident, loss or damage and shall forward immediately any letter, Notice of intended prosecution, writ, summons or process relating thereto. . . .

  Condition 13 said:

  The due observance and fulfilments of the terms,provisions, conditions and endorsements of this Policy in so far as they canapply and the truth of the statements and answers in the proposal form shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Underwriters to make any payment under this Policy.

  Denning勋爵认为法律决不会强迫一个人去做那些没用的和不必要的事情,如果保险公司他们从另一个来源获得所有的实质性知识,以至于被保险人自己没有告诉他们,他们完全不会受到损害偏见,那么他们就不能依靠这个条件来对抗索赔。最终判摩托车车主上诉成功,保险公司得赔付索赔。

  在 OktaCrude Oil Refinery AD v Mamidoil-Jetoil Greek Petroleum Company S.A. & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1031案中,其中合同第4条规定:

  4 Neither party shall be responsible for damage caused by delay or failure to perform in wholeor in part the stipulations of the present Agreement, when such delay orfailure is attributable to earthquakes, acts of God, strikes, riots, rebellion,hostilities, fire, fl ood, acts or compliance with requests of any governmental or EC authority, war conditions or other causes beyond the control of the party affected, whether or not similar to those enumerated.

  The party invokingforce majeur, shall give prompt notice to the other party by fax,telex followedby registered letter stating the kind of Force Majeure.

  最高法院的Longmore勋爵在第35段判决中说到如下,认为将通知视为合同的条件条款是不明智的。

  35. While acknowledging the force of that contention, I would prefer to leave the question undecided since this appeal does not turn onthe point. I have already said that it is remarkable that notice of the request contained in the letter of November 1999 was not given until June 2001. Onecannot help feeling that if the request contained in the letter really had been beyond Okta's control, Okta would have given notice of it at once, just asRolimpex gave immediate notice to Czarnikow of the Polish sugar ban. The present appeal is so fact specific that it would be unwise to express even an obiter view on whether the requirement that prompt notice be given should be regarded as a condition ofthe contract.

  回到文章开头,结合这些判例可知,发生不可抗力事件之后,一方给予另一方通知显然不是必要的,尤其是在当事方都清楚知道事件的情况下。

  虽然发通知不是必要的,那么是否意味着一发生不可抗力事件,当事人中的某一方就可以引援来免除自己的责任呢?显然也不是这样,如Parker勋爵在CIFv.Sealink案中如下所说:

  A party must not only bring himself within the clause but must show that he has taken all reasonable steps to avoid its operation, or mitigate its results.

  一方当事人不仅要把自己置于该条款之内,而且要表明自己已经采取了一切合理的措施来避免其运作或减轻其后果。

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)