2018-02-10
2464 
【摘要】期租合同下，会碰到各种各样的索赔，比如航速油耗、亏舱、停租等等，而租家往往选择在租金中直接抵扣。那么这类直接抵扣是否合法呢？本文结合实务中发生的，来说说这方面的问题。
【关键词】equitable set-off、衡平抵销 、停租、索赔
近期碰到一些争议，租家在租金中抵扣了一些索赔额，然后船东就发邮件声称所谓的索赔未获得他们确认而不得抵扣，否则将采取进一步行动。有一电邮如下，其中的金额作了处理。
Owners note that Charterers have made deductions in the amount of USD105,000 in respect of the alleged short shipment claim and 5 days of hire, together with 16MT of HSFO and 1 of LSMGO, in respect of delays at Shanghai.
Aside from the fact that Owners clearly reject these claims, Charterers are aware that only undisputed amounts may be deducted from hire. Charterers are not entitled to make the deductions set out above, and in Charterers' SOA, and Charterers are to pursue their claims through the contractual mechanisms in due course.
In the circumstances, this message serves as formal notice in accordance with clause 76 of the CP that, unless Charterers rectify their failure to pay the above amounts within 3 banking days from today, 1 February 2018, Owners will exercise their rights withhold performance of the vessel.Owners point out that clause 76 provides that Owners will have no responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of withholding performance and that Charterers indemnify Owners for all such consequences.
All Owners' rights remain reserved.
该案中，船东声称的两个争议为，一个是由于船舶实际情况与规范描述不对而导致的亏舱索赔；二是因验舱不通过而产生的停租。船东在该电邮中声称仅仅没有争议的才可抵扣，否则租家无权从租金作抵销。如果租家未按要求纠正并在3个工作日内安排付款的话，将按照合同条款终止船舶服务。
另外一个案，情况类似，主要涉及的是航速索赔，但船东认为此部分索赔未确认，因此不得从租金中抵销。
从船东的电邮中可以看出，其观点为：（i）只有没有争议的才可抵销；（ii）租家无权在租金中扣减抵销。笔者在之前的文章已经将过，发这种终止服务的，几乎没有什么效果，终止服务船东还的尽减损的义务，只能是不发船舶动态报，船还不能停下来漂在海上。也不是撤船通知，如果货已装船，已签发提单，在如今市场，撤了可能损失更大。最有效的措施是，如果租约为NYPE46格式范本的话，按合同第18条，发留置权通知。只要租金一到期就赋予船东对货物留置的权利，当然如果修改过，由标准的all cargo变成了charterers’ cargo，那么就另当别论；目前市场，很少有货是租家自己的。
现在回到本文主题，船东声称租家，在船东他们没有同意的情况下，不能从租金中扣除我们的索赔额，其中包括航速索赔，亏舱索赔，停租等。笔者认为这些船东的理由，在众多权威先例面前，根本不充分。
关于航速索赔部分，一般合同会约定航速油耗（此部分如果航速油耗不是保证的，只是供参考的情况除外），如果按合同要求委托了气导，并且有了气导报告，那么依据以下理由，租家合理地在租金中做抵扣，做法正当。
首先，NYPE46格式的合同未修改的第15条明确规定如下：
15. That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery or equipment,
98 grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause
99 preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by
100 defect in or breakdown of any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra fuel consumed in consequence
101 thereof, and all extra expenses shall be deducted from the hire.
该停租条款，可以分为两部分，第一部分为有损失及阻碍中断了租家需要的服务，第二部分为由于机械方面的原因导致船舶航速油耗可扣除的情况。
关于停租，法官Kerr在The Mareva A.S.[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.368 at page 381 说到：只要船舶能够给租家提供想要的服务，那么租家就得连续支付租金；但是如果不能，给租家造成了损失，那么租家就可以停租。
The object is clear. The Owners provide the ship and the crew to work her. So long as there are fully efficient and able to render to the charterers the service then required, hire is payable continuously. But if the ship is for any reason not in full working order to render the service then required from her, and the charterers suffer loss of time in consequence, then hire is no payable for the time so lost.
由于船舶的航速油耗达不到合同规范要求，导致了租家的损失，那么纵然合同中关于气导条款没有明确说明可以从租金中直接扣除，依据NYPE46第15条的停租条款，租家也有权利从租金中作对应扣除。
如果合同是NYPE93版本的，也一样，该范本中第17条的Off Hire条款有如下规定：
If upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in, or breakdown of, any part of her hull, machinery or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extra bunkers consumed in consequence thereof, and all extra proven expenses may be deducted from the hire.
除非船东能证明航速油耗索赔不是由于船舶本身的原则造成的，即是受坏天气影响，那么船东就负有举证责任去证明租家委托的气导存在问题，租家的抵扣不合理不是出于善意的。这里包括，如果航速油耗都有about而没有给予速度0.5节，油耗2%左右的富余量（有判例表明无需给最大量5%），那么可能认为这份气导报告不准确，而导致抵扣过多而存在问题。
在这点上，笔者建议，在相关的气导条款后，如果是作为租家，尽量加上“If any time lost and/or bunker over consumption, Charterers are entitled to make deduction or set-off from hire payment.”此类措辞，更好地明确有索赔可从租金中作抵扣的权利。
接下来就涉及到这种从租金中抵销是否正当的情况，法律上叫“equitable set-off”，即衡平抵销，衡平法中的一种可抵销的情况。
首先参权威参考书《Time Charter》最新的第7版，Chapter 16-Hire and Withdrawl，16.48的如下描述：
Charterers’ right to make deductions from hire
16.48 The general rule is that the charterers must pay the full amount of each hire instalment. However, in certain circumstances, the charterers are entitled to make deductions from hire or to set off against hire. The charterers’ right to deduct, or to set off, arises in three principal cases: (a) where the charterers have an express right of deduction under the terms of the charter; (b) where the charterers are entitled to an adjustment of hire following a period of off hire; and (c) where the charterers have claims for damages which they are permitted to set off against hire.
一般规则是承租人必须支付全部租金，但在某些情况下，承租人有权从租金中扣除或抵销。承租人扣除或抵销的权利主要出现在三个主要情况：（a）承租人根据租船合同条款有明确的扣除权利；（b）承租人在随后的停租期间有权对租金所作的调整；（c）承租人有损害赔偿的主张，获准从租金中抵消的。
之前提到的验舱不通过而产生的停租，或者依据15条停租条款列明的可停租事项，这种类别的就是第一种情况，明确的扣除权利。除非租船合同中没有说验舱不通过可以停租。亏舱索赔和航速油耗索赔可以归于第三种情况，即损害赔偿。
在《Time Charter》中关于衡平抵销的依据，可以参16.60，如下：
The basis of equitable set-off
16.60 In The Nanfri [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132, at page 140, Lord Denning, M.R., said that, as a matter of general law, the right to equitable set-off arises where a party has claims which “arise out of the same transaction or are closely connected with it”, and “which go directly to impeach the plaintiff’s demands, that is, [are] so closely connected with his demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce them without taking into account the cross-claim”. Lord Denning’s requirement that there be such a close connection between the right (here, the right to hire) and the charterer’s cross-claim that it would be manifestly unjust to enforce the right without setting off the cross-claim was endorsed, in Geldof v. Carves [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 (C.A.), after an exhaustive review of the authorities, by Rix, L.J., who added that reference to impeachment (“an unhelpful metaphor in the modern world”) should now be dropped. Commenting on Lord Denning’s formulation, Saville, J., said in The Aditya Vaibhav [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 573, that in the context of a time charter “in respect of… periods when the owners are providing that for which hire is payable, such manifest injustice does not appear. The reason for this is that a claim for hire in respect of such periods cannot be impeached by saying that owners are in any sense asking to be paid for a service which they have not provided.”
在The Nanfri [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 132案中，Denning勋爵在第140页说到：
作为一般法律问题，衡平抵销的权利出现在，如果一方当事人提出“同一交易或与之有密切关系的”和“直接弹劾原告要求的权利，与他的要求密切相关，将会是显然不公正的如果允许执行它们而不考虑交叉诉讼”。Denning勋爵的要求，在权利（这里是租金的权利）和承租人的交叉诉讼之间有这样一个密切的联系，即在不抵消交叉诉讼的情况下强制执行权利将明显是不公正的，在Geldof v. Carves [2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 517 (C.A.)案中，对权威的详细审查，Rix勋爵补充说，提到弹劾（“在现代世界无益的比喻”），现在应该被丢弃。在谈到Denning勋爵的表述，Saville法官，在The Aditya Vaibhav [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 573案中说到，即在期租“关于出租人提供了服务的期间，租金是可获得的，这种明显的不公正就不会出现。原因是这种时期的租金主张不能通过说出租人在任何意义上要求支付他们没有提供的服务来弹劾。
16.61描述如下：
16.61 The right to set-off is now well established. Hobhouse, J., in The Leon [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 470, having reviewed the authorities, said, at pages 475 and 476: “In fields of commercial law certainty of contractual rights and remedies is of the greatest importance. The right to be paid time charter hire and the right to withhold payment are particularly clear examples where such certainty of the law must exist. The Court of Appeal has formulated a simple rule which represents the relevant application of the underlying principle. If the formulation is to be redrawn a better case would have to be made out than has been made before me and it is not appropriate for a Court of first instance to undertake that task… In the present context there is a series of precedents and we must accept their guidance.” See also the judgment of Rix, L.J., in the more recent Court of Appeal case of Geldofv. Carves, above.
现在抵销的权利是公认的，参Hobhouse法官在The Leon [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 470案中所说：在商事法领域，合约的权利和补救的确定性是最重要的。特别明确的例子是，有权获得定期租船合同的租金和停止付款，这种法律的确定性是必须存在的。 上诉法院制定了一条简单的规则，代表了基本原则的相关适用。 如果要重新拟订这个表述，就必须提出一个比我面前更好的理由，一审法院不适宜承担这一任务......在目前情况下，有一系列先例，我们必须接受他们的指导。
接下来来看Denning勋爵在The “Nanfri”案中的关于衡平抵销的权威表述：
In making the distinction between set-off and cross-claim, the Courts of common law had their own special rules. For instance in a series of cases they formulated rules saying when there could be an abatement of rent or an abatement of the sums due for work and labour done, or an abatement of the price of goods sold and delivered. So that the defendant could make deductions accordingly. But the Courts of equity, as was their wont, came in to mitigate the technicalities of the common law. They allowed deductions - by way of equitable set-off - whenever there were good equitable grounds for directly impeaching the demand which the creditor was seeking to enforce.
These grounds were never precisely formulated before the Judicature Act, 1873. It is now far too late to search through the old books and dig them out. Over 100 years have passed since the Judicature Act, 1873. During that time the streams of common law and equity have flown together and combined so as to be indistinguishable the one from the other. We have no longer to ask ourselves: What would the Courts of common law or the Courts of equity have done before the Judicature Act? We have to ask ourselves: What should we do now so as to ensure fair dealing between the parties?
United Scientific Holdings v. Burnley Borough Council, [1977] 2 W.L.R. 806 at p. 812 by Lord Diplock. This question must be asked in each case as it arises for decision: and then, from case to case, we shall build up a series of precedents to guide those who come after us. But one thing is quite clear: it is not every cross-claim which can be deducted. It is only cross-claims that arise out of the same transaction or are closely connected with it. And it is only cross-claims which go directly to impeach the plaintiff's demands, that is, so closely connected with his demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim. Such was the case with the lost vehicle in Morgan v. Johnson, [1949] 1 K.B. 107 and the widow's misconduct in Hanak v. Green, [1958] 2 Q.B. 9.
但有一点很清楚：不是每一个交叉诉讼可以扣除的。只有交叉诉讼是由同一笔交易产生，或者与交易索赔密切相关。且仅当交叉诉讼直接弹劾原告人的请求，即与他的请求紧密联系的交叉诉讼，将会是显然不公正的如果在没有考虑到交叉诉讼，而容许他强制执行付款。
在该案中，最终Denning勋爵认为，承租人的有效索赔是通过真诚合理评估扣除数额的索赔，认为承租人有权从租金中扣除未经出租人同意的有效索赔额。
So at long last I turn to the question asked by the umpire. I regard the words "valid claims" as denoting claims which are made to deduct sums quantified by a reasonable assessment made in good faith. To the questions so interpreted I come to the same conclusion on each of these as the umpire Mr. Clifford Clark. I would hold that the charterers were entitled to deduct from hire without the consent of the owners valid claims which arose under cl. 11 of the charter-party or valid claims which constituted an equitable set-off. I would hold that the charterers validly determined the charter-party on Oct. 5, 1977. So I would answer with the umpire "Yes, yes, yes".
I differ from the Judge only on the point of repudiation. It seems to me that the shipowners, by making the threats, launched a petard with which to destroy the charterers. It has blown up in their faces. They are hoist with their own petard. They must nurse their wounds as best they can. I would allow the appeal accordingly.
这里表明，如果直接相关，真诚且合理，那么无需船东同意。很显然，航速索赔与亏舱索赔都是与租船合同直接相关的，将会导致明显的不公正，如果不考虑到承租人的交叉诉讼索赔而容许出租人的执行付租金的要求。因此，船东认为他们没有同意租家就不能从租金中抵扣，并没有道理。船东同意与否，并不是租家是否能从租金中作抵扣的条件。
因此仅剩下最后一个问题，这些抵扣是否是合理的及真诚善意的。
在The “Kostas Melas”案中，承租人在支付的租金中作了一系列抵扣，其中包括航速索赔。Robert Goff法官在第25页中说到，承租人在行使其抵扣的权利时，需考虑预估是基于真诚的且有合理的基础。
I take first the law relating to set-off, in the context of time charters. In past years, it was customary to look to the terms of the charter itself, to ascertain whether the charter conferred upon the charterers an express right to deduct items from the hire. Such a right of deduction is often given under time charters, for example in respect of the value of bunkers remaining on board at redelivery, or in respect of disbursements incurred by charterers for owners' account. But when such a right is conferred, it is usually restricted to the last hire payment, and indeed may be exercisable only in even more restricted circumstances; furthermore, since the right of deduction is exercisable before the sums to be deducted can be finally ascertained, the amount to be deducted can only be an estimated sum. It follows that, where charterers claim to exercise an express right of deduction, disputes may arise in a number of respects, for example, whether the circumstances have arisen when the charterers are entitled under the contract to make a deduction of the relevant kind, or whether, if they are so entitled, their estimate can be justified. An estimate can, of course, only be justified if it can be shown to have been made in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
关于衡平抵销，Robert Goff法官引援了Denning勋爵的权威表述，认为承租人可以凭借衡平抵销的原则抵销某些与租金有关的索赔，即使合同中并未明确赋予他这样做的权利。
However, we now have the authority of a majority of the Court of Appeal that a charterer may, by virtue of the principle of equitable set-off, set off certain claims against hire, even where the contract does not expressly give him the right to do so. Claims which can be so set off are those which "arise out of the same transaction or are closely connected with it", and "which go directly to impeach the plaintiff's demands, that is, so closely connected with his demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce them without taking into account the cross-claim"
这里面提到，合同未明确赋予的权利，依据衡平抵销原则，承租人也有权从租金中抵扣。当然如果是程租合同，情况并不一样，通常情况下，货物方面的索赔，比如少交付货物或者货损，租家无权从运费中作抵销。
在第26页，Robert Goff法官继续说，非常清楚，对期租合同分期租金有索赔，该索赔可以以承租人主张行使合同赋予的抵扣权利或者衡平抵销的权利为由来全部或部分抵偿。
So much is clear; but, as I have already indicated, when a claim is made to an instalment of time charter hire, that claim may be resisted in whole or in part on the ground that the charterers claim to exercise a contractual right of deduction, or a right of equitable set-off.
关于真诚及合理性，Robert Goff法官认为考虑到衡平抵销权利的特点，本质上只能在合理的基础上真诚地行使该权利，如果承租人寻求从租金中扣除或抵销，他们需真诚且有合理的理由。
Even so bearing in mind the characteristics of the right, it is in my judgment implicit in its very nature that it should only be exercised in good faith on reasonable grounds, and furthermore, if the other party considers that it is not being so exercised, he should be able to obtain a rapid adjudication upon that question.
Second, for the reasons I have given, if charterers seek to make deductions from, or set-off sums against, time charter hire, they should only do so in good faith and on reasonable grounds.
在该案中，Robert Goff法官认同仲裁员的裁定，认为承租人关于航速索赔等从租金中抵消不合理及非善意的。
在The“Chrysovalandou Dyo”案中，也涉及到包括航速索赔等一系列抵扣的情况。Mocatta法官在164页判决中说到，依据合同第35条，承租人可从租金中扣除出租人费用，依据第56条可以扣除航速索赔。但这两项权利并没有什么份量，虽然是合理及真诚的，承租人并不能依赖如果错误过大的话。
最终Mocatta法官认为在9月1日的时候，承租人关于航速索赔等的抵扣过多而导致租金支付不足，出租人有权依据第18条对货物行使留置权。
At the same time it permits by cl. 35 the charterers to deduct owners' disbursements from hire against presentation of vouchers or telexed breakdown of estimated disbursements and cl. 56 dealing with deductions from hire in respect of the speed warranty. These two entitlements would be of little value, if, despite being made reasonably and in good faith, they could not be relied upon if by error they were too large.
在2011年的Geldof Metaalconstructie v. Simon Carves案中，关于衡平抵销，Rix勋爵经过对众多先例的对比分析，在第528页判决书中说到；基于所有这些原因，他要强调Denning勋爵的标准，把对弹劾概念的任何提及看作是对标准的最好的重申，也是最经常提及和应用的一个，即：“交叉诉讼与原告的请求密切相关，将会是明显不公正的如果允许他执行付款而不考虑交叉诉讼”。
(vi) For all these reasons, I would underline Lord Denning's test, freed of any reference to the concept of impeachment, as the best restatement of the test, and the one most frequently referred to and applied, namely: "cross-claims so closely connected with [the plaintiff's] demands that it would be manifestly unjust to allow him to enforce payment without taking into account the cross-claim". That emphasises the importance of the two elements identified in Hanak v Green; it defines the necessity of a close connection by reference to the rationality of justice and the avoidance of injustice; and its general formulation, "without taking into account", avoids any traps of quasi-statutory language which otherwise might seem to require that the cross-claim must arise out of the same dealings as the claim, as distinct from vice versa. Thus, if the Newfoundland Railway test were applied as if it were a statute, very few of the examples of two-contract equitable set-off discussed above could be fitted within its language. I note that in Chitty on Contracts, 30th Edition, 2008, volume II, at para 37-152, the test for equitable set-off is formulated in terms of Lord Denning's test.
关于之前发生的可停租，或者索赔事项但未抵扣的，作为租家有权利从下一期租金中抵消。Goff勋爵在贵族院的The Trident Beauty [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 365案中说到：考虑到租金预先支付的情况，而且船舶可能在雇佣期已经支付的期限内根据其中一个或另一个相关条款被停租，那么不可避免地，可能必须是对这样付款作调整。这种调整是期租合同的正常特征。通常的做法是，在下一批租金到期时作出调整，从这一批中扣除先前支付的，尚未赚取的租金。如果有关期间是 根据合同最后的期限，这样的扣除可能是不可能的，任何超额付款出租人都必须偿还。
此部分判决可以参《Time Charter》16.17如下：
16.17 However, in practice adjustments are normally made by way of set-off against the following month’s hire. In The Trident Beauty [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 365 (H.L.), at page 367, Lord Goff commented as follows: “given the circumstances that the charter hire was payable in advance and that the ship might be off hire under one or other of the relevant clauses during a period in respect of which hire had been paid, it was inevitable that, from time to time, there might have to be an adjustment of the hire so paid. Such adjustments are a normal feature of administration of time charters. The usual practice is, I understand, for an adjustment to be made when the next instalment of hire falls due, by making a deduction from such instalment in respect of hire previously paid in advance which has not been earned… If the relevant period is the last hire period under the charter, such a deduction may not be possible. Any overpayment will then have to be repaid by the shipowner, and no doubt this will normally be taken care of in the final account drawn up at the end of the charter period.”
此外，依合同明确可停租的期间租金，如果船东认为不能从下一期租金中抵扣。对于这个船东未赚取的，多付的租金，依据NYPE46格式第18条，船东得立刻退还。
18. That the Owners shall have a lien upon all cargoes, and all sub-freights / sub-hires / sub-demurrages for any amounts due under this Charter,
including General Aver-
111 age contributions, and the Charterers to have a lien on the Ship for all monies paid in advance and not earned, and any overpaid hire or excess
112 deposit to be returned at once. Charterers will not suffer, nor permit to be continued, any lien or encumbrance incurred by them or their agents, which
113 might have priority over the title and interest of the owners in the vessel.
对于此点的解释可以参《Time Charter》第16章的16.16，如下：
16.16 In principle, where the owners come under an obligation to pay the charterers an adjustment of hire, their obligation is to pay that adjustment forthwith: see Scrutton L.J.’s comments in Stewart v. Van Ommeren [1918] 2 K.B. 560, at page 564. Indeed Clause 18 of the New York Produce form expressly requires that overpaid hire is returned “at once”. So if, for example, if the ship is off hire, the owners’ obligation to pay the consequent adjustment accrues each day that the ship is off hire.
结合这些分析，笔者认为，只要租家作出的抵扣是真诚的（没有恶意多扣），有合理的基础（比如有准确的气导报告，索赔材料等），那么依据租船合同第15条及衡平抵销原则，有权从租金中作相应扣减。船东如果因此发所谓的grace notice不正当，如果终止服务，将构成船东违约，租家反过来可以找船东索赔损失。或者船东为了避免租家作单方面的抵扣，为了能收回全部租金而指示船长不运费预付提单；或者拒绝确认保函（前提是合同中有保函条款）；或者拒绝安排靠泊卸货等，船东的这类行为将直接构成违约，租家有权索赔损失。
当租家所作的抵扣是真诚善意的，有合理基础，没有多扣，且这些抵扣是和合同直接相关的，那么船东唯一能做的只能是：
- 事后再协商；
- 如协商不成，再诉诸仲裁。
It seems to methat he is entitled to quantify his loss by a reasonable assessment made ingood faith-and deduct the sum so quantified from the hire. Then actual figurescan e ascertained later: either by agreement between the parties: or, failingagreement, by arbitration.
参考资料：
1.《Time Charter》
（后记：本篇为纪念基哥退休而作，当日有感而匆忙整理，再于2018年2月9日修改。榜样的力量是无穷的，愿团队继续奋勇前行！
本篇也为第70篇，感谢有熟悉的你，或陌生的你一路相随！恭祝各位新年快乐！节后继续~）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
