《装卸时间与滞期费》第二章——装卸时间条款-连载(三)

2018-03-283590
  《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

  Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款

  Working days

  工作日

  2.23 A working day is a day in the normal sense, in that it has twenty-four hours, and is used to describe those days at the port in question when work can normally be expected to take place. It is much older in usage than its variant, the weather working day, which will be considered later.

  2.23 按照通常的含义,工作日是这样的一天/日,在该天/日中有24个小时,同时它被用于描述在有关港口通常能够预计可以进行工作的日子。相比较它的变形体,良好天气工作日(其被认为是后来出现的),它这一用法要年久很多。

  2.24 Originally, it may have been used specifically to exclude Sundays and holidays. In Cochran v. Retberg, Lord Eldon held, with regard to what was then customary in the Port of London:

  . . . the fourteen days mentioned in the bill of lading means working days, that is a construction which excludes Sundays and holidays...

  2.24 最初,它可能是为了明确地表示将星期日和节假日排除在外而专门使用的。在Cochran v. Retberg案,Eldon勋爵就什么是伦敦港的习惯做出判定:

  …在提单中所提到的14天是意思是工作日,那是将星期日和节假日排除在外的一种解释…

  2.25 A more elaborate description of how working days may vary from country to country was given in Nielsen v. Wait by Lord Esher MR, who said:

  . . . but working days in England are not the same as working days in foreign ports, because working days in England, by the custom and habits of the English, if not by their law, do not include Sundays. In a foreign port working days may not include saints’ days. If it is the custom or the rule of the foreign port that no work is to be done on the saints’ days, then working days do not include saints’ days. If by the custom of the port certain days in the year are holidays, so that no work is done in that port on those days, then working days do not include those holidays. Working days in an English charterparty, if there is nothing to shew a contrary intention, do not include Christmas Day and some other days, which are well known to be holidays. Therefore ‘‘working days’’ mean days on which, at the port, according to the custom of the port, work is done in loading and unloading ships, and the phrase does not include Sundays.

  2.25 上诉法院院长Esher勋爵在Nidsen v. Wait案中就工作日是怎样因国家不同而变化的做了更加精细完善的描述,他说:

  ……但是,在英国的工作日与在国外港口的工作日是不一样的,因为在英国,如果不是根据它们的法律,而是根据英国的传统和习惯,工作日并不包括星期日在内。在外国港口,工作日可能不包括万圣节在内。如果在万圣节不去做工是外国港口的惯例或规则,那么工作日就不包括万圣节。如果根据港口的习惯,一年中的某些日子是节假日,因此在那个港口的那这些天是不工作的,于是工作日就不包括那些节假日。在英囯的租船合同中,如果没有能够证明相反意图的话,工作日就不包括圣诞节和某些其他日子,众所周知,那些日子是指节假日。因此,‘工作日’是指,在特定的港口,就是根据港口的习惯,那些从事装船和卸船作业的日子,因此这个短语并不包括星期日。
  


  2.26 In Nelson & Sons Ltd v. Nelson Line (Liverpool) Ltd (No 3), Channell J commented that where the charterparty said ‘‘working days’’, the mention of Sundays and holidays would be unnecessary as those days would not be working days. However, what ‘‘working days’’ does also exclude is the local equivalent of Sunday in non-Christian countries. Thus, in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture, Lord Devlin said:

  But there may, of course, be days in some ports, such as the Mohammedan Friday, which are not working days and yet cannot well be described as Sundays or holidays.

  Lord Devlin then went on to approve what he described as a comprehensive definition by Hamilton J in British and Mexican Shipping Co Ltd v. Lockett Brothers & Co Ltd, where the judge said :

  ‘‘working day’’ in this charterparty means something contradistinguished from days which are not working days, a day of work as distinguished from days for play or rest; and I think it is immaterial whether the days for play or rest are so for secular or religious reasons, and whether they are so by the ancient authority of the Church or by the present authority of the state...

  In the Court of Appeal, where the decision was reversed on another point, counsel for the plaintiffs said, somewhat succinctly, in his argument that the judge below had held ‘‘that a working day included every day except days appointed for prayer or play’’.

  2.26在Nelson Sons Ltd v. Nelson Line (Liverpool) Ltd (No 3)案中,Channell法官曾经解释说:租船合同说到‘工作日’,就不一定像谈论那些可能不是工作日的日子那样谈论星期日和节假日。然而,在非基督教的国家里,‘工作日’还是要排除那些在当地等同于星期天的休息日。因此,在Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture—案中,Devlin勋爵 曾经说:

  但是,在某些港口当然会有一些日子,如穆罕默德星期五之类的日子,它不是工作日同时又不能硬是说成星期日或节假日。

  接下来Devlin勋爵对由Hamilton法官在British and Mexican Shipping Co Ltd v. Lockett Brothers & Co Ltd—案中提出的并被他称之为综合定义的说法表示赞同。在该案中那个法官说:

  在这份租船合同中的‘工作日’是指与那些不是工作日的日子相区别的天数,即从事工作的日子是不同于那些供娱乐和休息的日子;因此我认为,不论那些供娱乐和休息的日子是由于世俗的原因还是宗教的原因而确定的,也不论它是根据古老的教会当局还是现在的权力机构所确定的,这些都是不重要的…

  在上诉法院,该案的判决因其他论点被推翻,原告的辩护律师曾经在他的辩护词中作过明确扼要的说明,尔后法官也作出了同样的判定:‘工作日包括除被指定用于做祈祷或娱乐的日子之外的每一天。’
  


  2.27 There was, however, a stream of judicial thinking that went further than the definitions set out above. The argument thus put forward was that the term ‘‘working day’’ not only distinguished a working from a non-working day, but also had the effect of cutting down a day from 24 hours to whatever part of it was usually expended in work. This judicial rivulet reached its greatest force in Alvion Steamship Corporation Panama v. Galban Lobo Trading Co SA of Havana (The Rubystone), a decision of the Court of Appeal where the leading judgment was given by Lord Goddard, then Lord Chief Justice, who put the argument this way:

  . . . I venture to think that if you say to a workman or to an employer of workmen: ‘‘What is your working day? How many hours is your working day?’’, they would not say: ‘‘Twenty-four hours’’. That is not the working day; you are asleep for a good part of the 24 hours. To say a working day is a period of 24 hours seems to me to ignore entirely the fact that the word ‘‘working’’ qualifies the word ‘‘day’’ and cuts it down...

  2.27然而,当时存在着比上述定义解释更进一步的司法思想倾向。因此,当时提出的争论焦点是,‘工作日’ 这一术语不仅是把从事工作的日子和非工作的日子区分开来,而且具有把一天从24小时削减到它通常被用于从事工作所花费的那部分时间的作用。在Alvion Steamship Corporation Panama v. Galban Lobo Trading Co SA of Havana (The Rubystone)案,这一司法思想达到了鼎盛,这是上诉法院的判决,是由Goddard勋爵做出了主要的判词,该法官后来成为上议院(议长)首席大法官,他以下述方式提出了这一论点:

  ……我冒昧地认为,如果你对一名工人或者工人的雇主说:‘你们的工作日是什么?你们的一个工作日是多少小时?’,他们可能不会说:‘是24个小时’。因为那不是工作日;在这24小时中有很大一部分时间你是在睡觉。说一个工作日就是24小时对我来说似乎是完全忽视了这样一个事实,即‘工作’这一词语是限定了‘日’这个词并将它削减……

  2.28 In The Rubystone, the charterparty provided for cargo to be loaded at a specified rate per weather working day and the normal working day was established as eight hours. The Court of Appeal went on to uphold McNair J’s finding that in construing the phrase ‘‘working day’’ regard should be paid, not to a calendar day of 24 hours, but to the normal working hours of a calendar day.

  2.28在The Rubystone案,租船合同对于装货规定了每一个良好天气工作日的具体装货效率,并且把每个正常工作日确定为8小时。上诉法院进一步肯定McNair法官的判定:在解释‘工作日’这一短语时,应当考虑的不是一天为24小时的日历日,而是一个日历日中用于正常工作的小时数。

  2.29 Some support for this is to be found in the judgment of Lord Esher MR in Nielsen v. Wait where he said:

  Now ‘‘working days’’ if that term is used in the charterparty, will vary in different ports; ‘‘working days’’ in the Port of London are not the same as working days in some other ports, even in England;...

  2.29在上诉法院院长Esher勋爵对Nielsen v Wait—案的判决中可以发现对这种观点的某种支持意见。他说:

  至于‘工作日’,如果在租船合同中使用了这个术语的话,会因不同的港口而变化;在伦敦港的‘工作日’与甚至在英国的其他某些港口的工作日也不尽相同……

  《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接(点击可购买)

  



  公益出版译著《Aikens on bills of lading》第二版中英文对照,筹款链接(可点击进入)

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长(微信号CaptWei)