2018-03-31
923 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
Working days
工作日
2.30 The Scottish case of Mein v. Ottman was also cited by Lord Goddard in support of his proposition, but commenting on this in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture, Lord Devlin said:
In the Scottish case of Mein v. Ottman, it was held that a working day was a day of 12 hours, but it does not appear how the figure was calculated. This is the only case cited before The Rubystone in which ‘‘working day’’, unless qualified in some way in the charterparty, has been held to be a number of working hours. Mr Justice Hamilton, in his judgment... in British and Mexican Shipping Co Ltd v. Lockett Brothers & Co Ltd . . . contrasts a working day ‘‘as a term of hours’’ and a working day ‘‘in its ordinary English sense’’ . . . But no authority before Mein v. Ottman and The Rubystone has been cited for the proposition that the expression ‘‘working day’’ by itself means a number of working hours; Lord Goddard treats it as self-evident.
2.30 苏格兰的案例，Mein v. Ottman案也曾被Goddard勋爵引用以支持他的主张，但是在Reardon Smith Line Ltd v. Ministry of Agriculture—案中，Devlin勋爵曾对此作过评论，他说：
在苏格兰Mein v. Ottman的案例中，曾经判定一个工作日是以12个小时为一日，但是却看不出这个数字是怎么计算出来的。这是在The Rubystone案之前唯一被引用的案例，在The Rubystone案中已经判定，除非在租船合同中以某些方式做了限定，否则‘工作日’就是用于工作的小时数。Hamilton法官曾经在他对British and Mexican Shipping Co Ltd v. Lockett Brothers & Co Ltd一案的判决词中……将工作日‘作一种小时的时间用语’和‘以其正常的英文含义’相比较……但是，在Mein v. Ottman案和The Rubystone案之前，还没有了先例可以引用以支持这一主张，即‘工作日’ 这一措辞根据其本身意指可以工作的小时数；Goddard勋爵将其视为是不证自明的。
2.31 In Reardon Smith Line v. Ministry of Agriculture, the House of Lords firmly rejected Lord Goddard’s views that a working day could relate only to that part of the day spent in working. Viscount Radcliffe put it this way:
I regard the decision of the Court of Appeal in (The Rubystone) as misconceived in so far as it treats a working day as a period of hours less than a calendar day or relates the idea of working day to an individual employee’s hours of work at normal or basic rates of pay.
2.31在Reardon Smith Line v. Ministry of Agriculture案中，上议院断然否决了Goddard勋爵的那种工作日只能是涉及一天中用于工作的那部分时间的观点。Radcliffe子爵是这样说的：
我认为，上诉法院的判决(The Rubystone案)是错误地解释，在某种程度上，它是把一个工作日视为少于一个日历日的一段时间，或者把工作日的概念与个别雇员按照通常的或基本的工资标准从事工作的时间混合在一起。
2.32 Lord Devlin said:
The truth is that the rights and obligations of the charterer as to the hours in which he can load or discharge have nothing to do with the computation of the lay days...
and summing up his speech:
First, I conclude with respect that it is contrary to all authority before 1955 to say that a working day is a calendar day cut down. ‘‘Working’’ does not define a part of a day but describes the character of a day as a whole. Secondly, I conclude that the character of a day as a working day cannot be determined by inquiring whether on that day or on a part of it work was done at standard rates. There is no established authority for that view which I think stems from the misconception that the ‘‘working day’’ of the laytime clause has something to do with the hours of the day during which the ship can be compelled to work...
2.32 Devlin勋爵说：
其实，就承租人可在其间从事装货或卸货作业的小时数而论，他的利和义务与装卸天数的计算无任何关系。
接着他对自己的发言做了总结：
首先，恕我冒昧，我的结论是，工作日是一种被削减的日历日，这与1955年以前的全部判例均相矛盾。‘工作’所限定的并不是一天中的某一部分，它所描述的是作整体的完整的一天的特征。第二，我的结论是，作为工作日的‘天/日’的特征不能够通询问在那天或那天的部分时间是否按照标准效率从事了工作这种方式来加以确定。对于这种观点并有现成的判例。我认为，这种观点是源于这样一种误解，即装卸时间条款的‘工作日’与一天中可以责令船舶从事装卸作业的那些小时有些关系……
2.33 Applying these principles, the House of Lords held that Saturday in Vancouver was a working day for the whole day. In so doing, they appear to have affirmed that the nature of a day will normally fall to be determined by how it is treated for the port as a whole, rather than for those involved in the particular vessel.
2.33上议院应用这些原则判定，在温哥华港，星期六的一整天就是一个工作日。 如此，他们似乎已经确认，通常，一天的性质是把一个港口作为整体来如何看待这一天加以确定的，而不是根据具体船舶牵涉到的情况来确定的。
2.34 Before leaving the meaning of working days, brief mention should be made of two variants:
2.34在结束关于工作日的含义讨论之前，还应简要地提及工作日的两个变形：
Running working days 连续工作日
Colliery working days 煤矿工作日
2.35 ‘‘Running working days’’ was a phrase used in the Gencon charterparty until 1976. However, in their normally accepted meanings, running and working are inconsistent when used to describe lay days, since the former means every day, including Sundays and holidays, and the latter excludes these. Therefore, for the words to have a logical meaning, it was necessary to ignore the word ‘‘running’’ and simply calculate the laytime allowed in terms of working days.
2.35 ‘连续工作日’是1976年以前一直在金康租船合同格式中使用的一个短语。然而，在它们通常被人们所接受的含义中，当它们被用于描述装卸天数时，‘连续的’和“可工作的”这两个词语是前后矛盾而不合乎逻辑的，因为前者是指每一天，其中包括星期日和节假日在内，而后者并不包括些日子。因此，为使这一措辞具有一个合乎逻辑的含义，便有必要略去‘连续的’这一词语，并直接按工作日这一术语进行计算所允许的装卸时间。
2.36 After 1976, however, laytime in the Gencon form of charter was expressed in terms of “running hours”, removing the difficulty mentioned in the previous paragraph. The 1994 version of the charter, however, changed this to “running days/hours” with presumably the term “running” applying to both “days” and “hours”.
2.36 然而，从1976年以后，在金康租船合同格式中，装卸时间已经用‘连续小时’来表达，由此消除了上一段提到的难点。然而，租船合同1994年修订版，把它变更为‘连续日/小时’形式，大概是使‘连续的’都能适用于‘日/天’和‘小时’。
《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）
