2018-04-08
1870 
【摘要】在期租合同下，除非发生的事项给承租人造成损失，船舶完全运作受到阻止，承租人可以引入到停租条款中，否则承租人无权停租。本文通过对The“Aquacharm”一案的介绍再来说说和停租相关的问题。
【关键词】停租、索赔、默示索赔权
如果你感觉帮助一个人不快乐，那就帮助两个人试试；如果还是感觉不快乐，那么就帮助十个人一百个人。当你能够给别人带来帮助，能帮忙解决事情的时候，你就会发现自己的价值，并因此收获快乐感。笔者也正在试图往这条路上来收获更多的快乐，然后努力做一个对别人有帮助的人。
前些天，碰到一争议，某轮在日本某个港口需要办某个证书，承租人认为办证书的期间可以停租，出租人需求帮忙。事件还原之后发现，办证书的期间，该轮在锚地等泊，笔者认为并没有给承租人造成额外的时间损失；承租人在船舶办证书期间所需要的服务是继续呆在锚地等靠泊，没有阻止船舶完全运作，船舶完全有能力提供在锚地等泊的服务，因此承租人无权主张停租。最终出租人成功说服承租人，放弃船舶办证书期间停租的索赔。事情圆满解决，在出租人开心快乐的时候，笔者也感到开心。一个人存在的其中一点价值就是，当朋友需要你的时候，你能挺身而出，提供必要的帮助。
现在回到本文的话题，停租是期租合同下非常重要的内容，出租人想及时收取全额租金，而承租人通常想办法，通过各种索赔抵扣来达到少付租金的目的。然而如之前文章所说，并不是所有索赔都可以从租金中作抵扣的，因此期租合同下停租条款所赋予的权利就显得额外重要。在解释合同停租条款的时候，承租人将得为船舶的使用而支付租金，除非他可以清晰地表明能将自己纳入到例外条款，否则将无权停租。如果条款的措辞有模糊的地方，那么将作出对出租人有利的解释，因为承租人试图削减出租人享有租金的权利，这是基本规则。如上诉院的Bucknill勋爵在Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport案中所说：
Thecardinal rule, if I may call it such, in interpreting such a charter-party asthis, is that the charterer will pay hire for the use of the ship unless he canbring himself within the exceptions. I think he must bring himself clearlywithin the exceptions. If there is a doubt as to what the words mean, then Ithink those words must be read in favour of the owners because the charterer isattempting to cut down the owners' right to hire.
航运实践种存在很多不确定的因素，有人为有自然方面的；比如之前文章说过的，抛锚结果因为锚地原因起不了锚或者锚被其它废弃物挂住了，因为涉及到港口安全问题，所以很可能承租人无权停租。有时候因为船方装多货了，结果导致过不了运河或靠不了港导致需要减载，这方面的损失，很多人认为是船长的原因导致，因此可以停租甚至找出租人索赔损失。其实，情况可能完全不是这样。那么现在就来看本文将介绍的，The “Aquacharm”案。
一、基本案情
Actis Co. Ltd. (以下简称“出租人”)在1974年10月10日与Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd. (以下简称“承租人”)签订了一份航次期租合同，将Aquacharm轮（以下简称“该轮”）租给承租人去执行从美国装货回日本的航次。
该轮在Rotterdam交船后，便按承租人指示到美国的Baltimore装煤炭，计划过巴拿马运河到日本卸。该轮在Baltimore装了约43,000吨煤炭，于11月8日完货开航。但是当该轮抵达巴拿马运河的Cristobal时，巴拿马运河当局拒绝让该轮通过，原因是该轮超过了允许的最大吃水。经过相当长时间的考虑，最终决定将636吨煤炭卸另一艘名为Mini Lux的船中，后者随后跟着该轮一起通过运河，在Balboa再装船。转运的总成本，包括雇用Mini Lux的成本为71,470美元。此外，该轮延误了8天23小时45分钟。
涉及的合同的主要条款如下：
That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores,fire, breakdown or damage to hull, machinery, or equipment, grounding,detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose ofexamination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the fullworking of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time therebylost.
二、争议的主要焦点
承租人认为因为超载，不能通过运河，因此该轮完全运作已经被阻碍，主张在这段延误期间应停租，并拒绝支付租金总共为86,344.89美元。但出租人声称，他们有权对延误期间获得租金，或至少是在运河的Balboa重新装货期间发生的那部分延误。出租人还声称他们有权根据租船合同明示或暗示的索赔权追偿转运的费用。
仲裁员裁定承租人无权停租并且出租人有权依据默示索赔权找承租人索赔转运的费用。该案的法律问题就是仲裁员的裁定是否正确。
三、商事法院判决
对于承租人所依赖的“any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel”，任何其它原因阻碍船舶完全运作，商事法院的Lloyd法官认为承租人当然有责任使他们自己处于该条款的规定范围内，对于第15条停租条款的举证责任显然是在承租人身上。
The burden is of course on the charterers to bring themselves within theprovisions of that clause.
关于同类规则ejusdem generis，是否适用于这些词，Lloyd法官认为有一些初步的冲突，但最后他不认为这很重要。承租人的代表律师Phillips承认必须对措辞的宽度加以限制，因为这些措辞必须在其上下文中解释，但这只是说同样事情的另一种方式。Lloyd法官认为，在他看来，同类规则只是更一般规则的一个例证，即所有合同条款都要在上下文中解释。
There was some preliminary skirmishing as to whether the ejusdem generisrule applies to those words. But in the end I do not think it matters. For Mr.Phillips, on behalf of the charterers, accepted that there must be somelimitation on the full width of the words, if only because the words must beconstrued in their context or "matrix". But that is only another wayof saying the same thing. The ejusdem generis rule is, as it seems to me, onlyan illustration of the more general rule that all contractual provisions are tobe construed in the context, whether linguistic or circumstantial, in whichthey are found.
承租人的代表律师认为，该船因为受到吃水的限制而无法立即履行其所需的服务，即通过巴拿马运河，因此该期间停租。他依靠Kerr法官在 The Mareva A / S [1977] 1 Lloyd'sRep.368案所说。Lloyd法官认为在他看来，目前的案件直接受Court Line Ltd.v.Dant＆Russell Inc.，（1939）64 Ll.L.Rep.212 （1939）44 Com.CAS.345案影响。在那个案中，定期租船中的一艘船被长江流域的轰炸困住了。Branson法官认为该租约受阻，但他接着以另一种说法认为该船停租。他在第219和352页判决中说到：基于这些原因，我得出结论认为裁决是正确的，应该得到肯定。因此，如果我得出相反的结论，我不需要详细谈谈其他可能出现的问题。如果租约没有受阻那么租金是应付的，除非合同中有任何内容阻止它成为应付。承租人依赖于第15条，争论取决于由于“任何其他原因阻碍船舶完全运作”内的轰炸所引起的延迟。在我看来，它没有。我并不是依靠Hogarth v. Miller案件来得出这个结论，而是依据这个租约方的话来说，这些租约方的情况与法院在这种情况下必须解释的情况有很大不同。这些词语并不适用于这样一种情况，即这艘船在各方面看起来都很完善，但是由于这样的原因而无法继续她的航次。如果没有停租期间，承租人在这方面将无法追偿。
For these reasons I have come to the conclusion that the award is correct and ought to be affirmed. I need not, therefore, deal in any detail with the other points which would have arisen if I had come to the opposite conclusion. If there was nofrustration the contract stands and hire is payable unless there is anything inthe contract to prevent it becoming payable. The charterers rely on clause 15for this. The argument depends upon the delay caused by the boom coming within the words "any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel". In my opinion, it does not. I do not rely on the case of Hogarth v. Miller for this conclusion but upon the words of this charterparty which are materially different from those which the Court had to construe in that case.The words are not apt to cover a case where the ship is in every way sound andwell found, but is prevented from continuing her voyage by such a cause asthis. If there was no "off-hire" period, the charterers would recover nothing in respect . . .
Lloyd法官认为因此，标准是船舶是否完全有效，也就是说，她是否完全有能力立即执行她所需的服务。如果她是，那么即使她因为某些外部因素而无法执行该服务，例如Court Line Ltd.v. Dant＆Russell Inc案的轰炸以及巴拿马运河公司在本案中不允许通过运河，她也不得停租。仲裁员在其第13（a）的判决中认定该轮在她自身方面适合立即提供所需要的服务。Lloyd法官认为，仲裁员采用了正确的标准，得出了船舶不能停租的裁决，法官他同意仲裁员的裁决。
The test, therefore, is whether the vessel is fully efficient in herself, that is to say, whether sheis fully capable of performing the service immediately required of her. If sheis, then she is not off-hire, even though she is prevented from performing that service by some external cause, such as the boom in Court Line Ltd. v. Dant &Russell Inc., and the refusal by the Panama Canal Company in this case to permit the vessel to pass through the canal. The umpire has found in par. 13(a) of his award that the vessel was fit "in herself" to perform theservice immediately required. In my judgment he has applied the right test. He has come to the conclusion that the vessel was not off-hire. I agree with his conclusion.
在这方面，Lloyd法官认为应该提到的唯一的另一个权威是The Appollo, [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 200案。在那个案中，一艘船被港口卫生当局扣留了近30个小时，因为船员中有两名以前曾是被带到怀疑斑疹伤寒的医院。港口当局坚持要在船舶获得入港许可前进行消毒。Mocatta法官认为该船停租。船舶在直到她被消毒后才能进入港口与直到她被减载后才能进港之间的分界线可能很窄，但据Lloyd法官认为据他所知，从来没有人认为在后一种情况下，船舶将被停租。Lloyd法官认为可以看出这种情况和现在没有什么不同，他认为回答了在第二部分列出的法律问题。14.1（a）中的答案为“否”；问题14.1（b）不会出现。
The dividing line between a vessel which is unable to enter a port until she has been disinfected and a vessel which is unable to enter port until she has beenlightened may be narrow, but it has never, so far as I know, been suggested that in the latter case the vessel would be off hire. I can see no differentbetween that case and the present. Accordingly, I answer the question of law set out in par. 14.1 (a) of the award "No". Question 14.1 (b) does not arise.
回到问题2：承租人是否有权就他们应该支付但没有支付的租金作为损害赔偿而追偿？
仲裁员认定，该轮是由租家要求的，装载到巴拿马运河允许的39英尺6英寸TFW的吃水。“TFW”代表热带淡水。在租船合同的第8条中，船长在根据租船合同关于任务及代理的命令和指示下。在现在的情况下，船长服从命令的义务并不是绝对的，而只是行使合理的技能和谨慎。按11（e）裁判员认定，在巴尔的摩装货时，船长未能行使合理的技能和谨慎，因为她在抵Cristobal时拱头。这一点很重要，原因如下。在通过运河的过程中，船舶将不得不通过名为Gatun的热带淡水湖。看起来，当一艘船舶从咸水进入淡水时，船头相对于船尾有下沉的趋势。在该轮的情况中，吃水的变化将是3英寸。如果她进入一个密度为1000的普通淡水湖，她的艏吃水将是39英尺7.42英寸，而最大允许的39英尺6英寸。事实上，正如后面会出现的那样，她进入Gatun湖的艏吃水应该大于39英尺7.42英寸，因为Gatun湖的密度恰好为995.4而不是1000。仲裁员认定船长知道他的船在进入淡水时会下沉，并且在巴尔的摩装货时应该考虑到这个因素。出租人是否对船长在这方面没有遵守租船人的命令负责？
出租人抗辩依靠两件事。 他们首先表示他们受到租船合同中的例外条款的保护。其次，出租人主张，即使船长已经行使了合理的技能和谨慎，巴拿马运河当局仍然拒绝该轮通过，以致租家没有受到损害，或者至少他们没有证明他们遭受过任何损害，这方面的举证责任，出租人认为在承租人身上。
Lloyd法官认为，合同第24条受美国海上货物运输法约束。由此纳入的“海牙规则”第4（2）（a）条免除了出租人在航行或管理船舶时的行为，疏忽或违约责任。在巴尔的摩装货的时候应该确保是船艉下沉而不是船艏下沉，船长是否在航行或管理船舶方面有过失？
Lloyd法官认为，美国的船舶的管理不包括或不包括船长在准备航程中所做的行为：参见Carver on Carriage by Sea，par.148，但英国法律没有这种限制。无论船舶在港还是公海，“管理”一词同样适用。仲裁员在裁决中13（c）裁定船长未能合理注意遵守承租人在合同第8条下关于装货的规定，是船舶管理中的疏忽或过失。Lloyd法官他同意这种看法。但仲裁员继续认为出租人不受规则4，r.2（a）的保护，因为不适合免除第8条的违约。Lloyd法官认为这很难遵循。 如果作为语言问题的例外涵盖了在这种情况下特定的未能遵守承租人的命令，为什么不应该给予这种效果呢？
Lloyd法官认为这可能是仲裁员受到贵族院在Suzuki & Co. Ltd. v. T. Benyon & Co. Ltd., (1926) 44 Ll.L.Rep. 49; (1926) 31 Com. Cas. 183案中判决的影响。Cave勋爵一人在那个案中认为，例外条款的措辞过于笼统，不能免除船东违反合同第8条的后果的责任。承租人的律师在本案中提出了类似的论点，即海牙规则4，r. 2（a）不足以免除违反合同第8条的责任。但是，Lloyd法官认为如果承租人的律师允许他说出这样的话，承租人的律师没有任何坚定的信念，在这一点，与承租人律师的观点相反。
承租人律师强烈依赖的观点是，出租人无权受到海牙规则4，r.2（a）的保护，因为他们未能恪尽职责，使船舶符合海牙规则3，r.1条下的适航。仲裁员在他们的裁决中13号（f）中裁定该船在巴尔的摩开航时并非不适航。承租人律师认为不是。他认为，一旦发现主要事实，这艘船是否不适航就是一个法律问题。他特别依赖那些认为如果一条船没有适当证书的情况下不适航的案例：例如，The Madeleine, [1967] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 224案。在Ciampa v. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., [1915] 2 K.B. 774案中，一艘船不适合运输一批柠檬，因为她注定要在中途停靠港进行熏蒸而被判船舶不适航。同样，承租人律师主张，Aquacharm轮前往巴拿马运河航行时注定不能成功。由于该轮的吃水，她不适合在那次航行中运送那些货物，因此她是不适航的。
Lloyd法官认为，承租人律师的论点让他非常相信，但最终，Lloyd法官认为他不准备与博学的仲裁员的裁决不同。Lloyd法官认为当然，“适航”的概念已经远远超出了其适应承受海上航海普通危险的原始含义，或者以“适合出海”这样一句话来扩展。尽管如此，出租人的代表律师辩称，在海牙规则3，r.1（a）中，这个词仍然有其最初的意义。在3，r. 1（b），其中涵盖船舶的配备和供应，以及海牙规则3，r.1（c）款涵盖了货物运输的保持状态。如果“适航”在海牙规则中具有其延伸的含义，那么 3，r.1（a）及3，r. 1（b）和（c）将是多余的。
Lloyd法官认为他没有为这个论点留下深刻的印象。显然，“适航”在1924年“海上货物运输法”第s.2中有其普通的扩展意义。以及“不适航”在海牙规则4，r.1.第二段中具有其普通含义。这个词不应该在海牙规则3，r. 1（a）中具有不同的和更狭义的含义。
但Lloyd法官认为这并不意味着这个词带有一个扩展的含义，意思可以无限延伸。Lloyd法官认为承租人的代表律师无法指出任何一艘船仅仅因为需要减载以进入港口而被认为不适航的情况。法官不打算将不适航的概念扩大到涵盖这种情况，当然，不打算说这艘船对于涉及通过巴拿马运河的特定航次是不适航的，因为当她抵达运河入口时，超过允许吃水的最大深度39英尺6英寸的一两英寸。此外，船长会遇到这种困惑，即如果船舶装载量低于她的允许吃水，承租人可能会抱怨货物被不必要地少装货。出于这些原因，Lloyd法官同意仲裁员的意见，认为该轮不是不适航的。
最终，Lloyd法官认为不存在恪尽职责的问题，出租人有权依靠海牙规则4，r. 1（a），免除船长不遵守承租人的命令的后果。因此，第14.2段中问题的答案是“否”。
But it does not follow from the fact that the word bears an extended meaning that the meaning can be extended indefinitely. Mr. Phillips was unable to point to anycase in which a vessel has been held to be unseaworthy merely because she had to lighten in order to get into port. I am not prepared to extend the conceptof unseaworthiness to cover such a case, and certainly I am not prepared to saythat this vessel was unseaworthy for the particular voyage which involved a passage through the Panama Canal because she was an inch or two over her permitted draught of 39 ft. 6 in. when she arrived at the entrance to the canal. Moreover, the master was in this difficulty that if the vesselhad loaded to less than her permitted draught the charterers could, if sominded, have complained that cargo had been unnecessarily shut out. For those reasons I agree with the umpire that the vessel was not unseaworthy.
It follows that no question of due diligence arises, and the owners are entitled to relyon art. 4, r. 1 (a), to exempt them from the consequences of the master's failure to comply with the charterers' orders. The answer to the question in paragraph 14.2 is therefore "No".
对于出租人主张的依据合同第8条，享有的默示索赔权问题，不是本文讨论的重点，因此不作分析。Lloyd法官认为出租人不享有默示索赔权，出租人得自行承担减载驳运的费用。
承租人不服判决，提出上诉。
四、上诉院判决
上诉院的Denning勋爵认为，该轮需要减载货物并没有完全阻止船舶运作，有足够的货物可卸到驳船上去，或者岸上或者湾里；船舶仍然完全地运作，延误只是因为需要减载一部分货物，在停租方面上判承租人无权停租。
We are to inquire first whether the "full working of the vessel" has been prevented. Only if it has, do we consider the "cause". I do not think the lightening of cargo does "prevent the full working of the vessel". Often enough cargo has to be unloaded into a lighter - for one reason or another - to gether off a sandbank - or into a basin. The vessel is still working fully, butshe is delayed by the need to unload part of the cargo.It is rather like Court Line Ltd. v. Dant &Russell Inc., (1939) 64 Ll.L.Rep. 212; (1939) 44 Com. Cas. 345. The vessel was still working fully, but she was delayed by the boom across the Yangtse River. This vessel was, therefore, stillon hire for nearly nine days.
关于船长的过失问题，Denning勋爵认为，造成所有麻烦的原因是船长超载船舶的过错，问题是承租人是否可以从出租人那里获得赔偿。这些损失是他们在近9天内必须向出租人支付的租金。Denning勋爵认为承租人是否能够追偿的关键是取决于该轮是否适航，当她离开巴尔的摩前往日本而通过巴拿马运河时。如果她不适航，出租人将承担责任，出租人无法证明他们已经恪尽职责。出租人因此根据海牙规则III（1）（a）和IV条需对此负责。如果该轮适航，出租人不会承担责任，出租人凭借海牙规则IV（2）（a）而免除责任，因为损失是由于船长在管理船舶中疏忽造成的。
仲裁员和商事法院法官认定该轮是适航的，Denning勋爵同意他们，他认为“海牙规则”中的“适航”一词是以其通常的含义使用的，而不是任何延伸或不自然的意思。这意味着该船-与她的船长和船员-本身适合遇到航程的危险，并且她适合在该航程中安全地运输货物-参见Scrutton on Charter-parties（第18版），这艘船很适合此服务。Denning勋爵认为也许该轮在通过巴拿马运河之前不得不减载，但那并不能认为她不适航。这与Ciampa and Others v. British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., [1915]2 K.B. 774案并不一致。在那个案中，那条船不适合运输货物，因为她必须经过熏蒸。也可参见TheMadeleine, [1967] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 224案。正如法官所说，没有一个案子认为，仅仅因为为了进入港口而需要减载会使船舶不适航。如她必须减载才能通过运河一样，并不会使船舶不适航。
The answer depends on whether the vessel was seaworthy or not when she left Baltimore for her trip through the Panama Canal to
Both the umpire and the Judge found that this vessel was seaworthy. I agree with them. I think the word "seaworthy" in The Hague Rules is used in its ordinary meaning, and notin any extended or unnatural meaning. It means that the vessel - with her master and crew - is herself fit to encounter the perils of the voyage and also that she is fit to carry the cargo safely on that voyage - see Scrutton onCharter-parties (18th ed.), p. 83. This vessel was so fit. It may be that she had to be lightened to pass through the Panama Canal,but that did not make her unfit. It is quite unlike Ciampa and Others v.British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., [1915] 2 K.B. 774. The vessel therewas unfit to carry the cargo safely because she had to be fumigated. So also inThe Madeleine, [1967] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 224. As the Judge said, there is no casein which a ship has been held to be unseaworthy merely because she has to lighten in order to get into port. So also if she has to lighten in order to get through the canal.
承租人关于这点在索赔损害赔偿方面，Denning勋爵认为，出租人受到海牙规则保护，损失仅仅是船长在管理船舶方面的过失造成的，而出租人可因船长过失免责。在这点上判承租人无权追偿损害赔偿。
I hold,therefore, that the charterers cannot recover damages for having to pay the hire.
关于驳运货物的费用，Denning勋爵认为是由于船长过失，装多了货物造成的；默示索赔权基于其真正的解释，并不包括因船长过失造成的转运费用。在这点上判出租人索赔转运费用不成立。
To my mind this point is to be solved by remembering that the master was at fault in overloading the vessel - for the specified trip. He put so much cargo into the vessel that she had to be lightened in order to pass through the Panama Canal. The case comes, therefore,within the long line of authorities which show that indemnity will not lie in respect of loss or expenditure which is the consequence of the plaintiff's own fault or that of his servant unless covered expressly or by necessary implication, see Canada Steamship Lines Ltd. v. The King, [1952] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 1; [1952] A.C. 192; and Walters & Whessors Ltd. v. ShellRefinery Co., unreported, but fully set out by Mr. Justice Mocatta in A.M.F. International Ltd. v. Magnet BowlingLtd., [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1028 at pp. 1056-1058. I do not think that this principle is affected at all by the fact that the shipowners are protected byart. IV (2) (a) of The Hague Rules against an action for the negligence of the master. The simple point is that the indemnity, on its true construction, does not cover the cost of transhipment when it has been brought about by the fault of the master. On this point, therefore, I agree with the Judge and not the umpire.
最终Denning勋爵认为Lloyd法官的判决在所有争议点上都是正确的，承租人上诉及出租人反诉均被驳回。
关于默示索赔权，Mustill勋爵在The“Nogar Marin ” [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.412 案中第422页说到：很清楚权威使我们毫不怀疑，赔偿义务的含义并不是自动的，它必须始终取决于个案的事实以及合同关系的条款。
It seems to us plain and the authorities leave us in no doubt that the implication of an obligation to indemnify is not automatic. It must always depend on the facts of the individual case, and on the terms of any underlying contractual relationship.
此外，如The “Kos”案所说，损害赔偿与指示之间必须存在直接的因果关系链。如果关系链不存在，则不享有默示索赔权。这方面的可参之前的文章。
总结：
本案主要是因为船长在配载的时候装多了货物，导致了在过巴拿马运河的时候因为船艏下沉导致了超吃水，被拒绝过运河。进而需要安排驳船减载，引起了关于停租及减载费用的争议。但商事法院的Lloyd法官及上诉院的Denning勋爵均认为The“Aquacharm”轮完全能提供承租人所需要的减载的服务，船舶完全运作并没有被阻碍，因此承租人不得停租。此外，因为出租人可以凭借海牙规则的保护，对于因船长在管理船舶过程中因疏忽所造成的损失免责，承租人在这点上无权找出租人追偿损害赔偿。而关于减载驳运货物的费用，Denning勋爵认为是由于船长过失，装多了货物造成的；默示索赔权基于其真正的解释，并不包括因船长过失造成的转运费用，在这点上判出租人索赔转运费用不成立。
关于所需要的服务，Staughton勋爵在The “Berge Sund”[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.453案中第460页判决中说到：问题不在于承租人希望或预期他们的要求是什么，而是他们实际需要什么服务。
The arbitrators' test was thus one of hope or expectation. But even ifthat was to be an objective test, I cannot believe that it was right. It is, as Aristotle said, probable that many improbable things will happen. The question is not what the charterers hoped or expected their orders would be, but what service they actually required.
在这个案子中，对于验舱不通过所造成的延误，Staughton勋爵在第461页判决中继续说到，这些命令部分是清晰明确，并且在所有相关的时候都暗示，船舶需要进行进一步清理。那是所需要的服务，而且这艘船完全适合进行清舱。
In my opinion the critical question is, what was the service required ofthe vessel on Dec. 20, 1982? What were the charterers' orders? They were not toload cargo; as I have said, that was the very last thing that the charterers would have ordered, since the copper strip test had been failed. The orders were, in part expressly and at all relevant times by implication, to carry out further cleaning.That was the service required, and the vessel was fully fit to carry it out.
关于船员在备舱过程中的疏忽或过失问题，Staughton勋爵认为船舶将装载什么货物需要什么程度的清洁这取决于承租人自己的安排；只有在出租人违反合同或船员方面存在疏忽的情况下，承租人才有救济。但如仲裁员所认定的，空载航次中并不存在疏忽或恪尽职责方面的问题，因此承租人试图追偿租金损失注定是失败的。
In my judgment the distinction lies in the fact that cleaning is in the ordinary way an activity required by a time charterer. It is his choice whatcargoes are loaded, and consequently when and what cleaning is required. If ina particular case the charterer declines to load until there has been furtheror extraordinary cleaning, the service required is that cleaning. Of coursethere may be cases where the need for such extra cleaning results from a breachof contract on the part of the owner or even from "nelgect of duty on the part of the master, officers and crew". In that event the charterer has aremedy. But here the arbitrators rejected the charterers' case that there hadbeen negligence or want of due diligence in cleaning on the ballast voyage.Once they had reached that conclusion, the argument that the vessel was offhire or that the charterers could recover the hire paid was in my opinion doomed to failure.
对于停租条款中的，deficiencyof men的解释，Sellers法官在Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport案中说到，高级船员因疾病或伤害而不能工作，等同于“deficiencyof men”，如果船舶的工作受到妨碍或阻碍，则适用该条款；如果丧失工作能力的船员在船上或在岸上医院这两者并没有什么区别。在完全有能力存在的情况下，身体无法工作的质量和性格不同于拒绝工作。在我看来，暂停支付租金条款中的“deficiencyof men”条款是为了在船上没有足够的高级船员和工作人员的情况下停租船舶。船上配备了完整的船员并且能够工作，但暂时因没有护航编队而不愿意开航。根据这些事实，博学的仲裁员认定在任何实质性时间都没有“deficiencyof men”。我认为仲裁员的裁决在法律上是正确的。
The inability of officers and men to work through sickness or injury would, in my view, amount to "deficiency of men" and the clause would apply if the working of the vessel was hindered or prevented thereby, and it would make nodifference if the incapacitated members of the crew were on the ship or in hospital on shore. Physical inability to work is different in quality and character from refusal to work when full capacity to do so exists. In my opinion, the provision "deficiency of men" in the suspension of hire clause is directed to putting the vessel off hire when an adequate complementof officers and crew for working the ship is not available. Here there was no failure in the complement. The complete crew was present in the ship able to work, but, for the time being, unwilling to take the ship to sea, except in convoy. On these facts the learned arbitrator has found that there was not at any material time a "deficiency of men." I am of opinion that his decision was right in law.
在该案中，上诉院的Bucknill勋爵在200页判决中说到，我认为第11（A）条中的“男士”一词必须理解为“高级船员和船员”。 如果我们看一下第34条，它会这样说：“对第11（A）条的补充条款尽管有第11（A）条的规定，但同意如果由于无法获得或完成一个船员而导致时间损失 （a）全额支付租金等等。我认为这两个条款是非常公正的解释，“Deficiency ofmen”与事物状态是一回事，仅仅是由于无能力获得或完成一个船员。换句话说，它涉及的是数量而不是意愿。
I think the word "men" in Clause 11 (A) must be read as meaning "officers and crew." If one looks at Clause 34 it says this: "Addendum to Clause 11 (A). Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 11 (A) it is agreed that in the event of loss of time due solely to inability to get or to completea crew (a) full hire will be paid," etc., etc. I think it is a very fair reading of those two clauses to say that the "deficiency of men" is the same thing as a state of things "due solely to inability to get or tocomplete a crew." In other words, it is dealing with numbers and not with willingness.
关于缺陷（deficiency）的问题，在The “Rijn ” [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.267 案中,涉及一份4个月加减20天的期租合同。该轮在交船后按承租人指示，在Lourenco Marques从1974年的11月8日一直呆到1975年的1月29，才装载铬矿开往Baltimore。该案涉及多个争议，承租人毁约，还船位置，由于污底所造成的航速索赔等。关于船舶污底所造成的航速索赔，Mustill法官在第272页判决书中说到，这是承租人自己选择让该船舶在热带水域中闲置了近3个月时间，如果承租人能够为延误的自然后果寻求经济救济将是不公正的。承租人对于合同第15条第二部分的索赔，法官认为很难将在租约期内海生物生长的积累能够被视为是船体的缺陷。但即使是这样，该缺陷也是承租人选择使用船舶的自然结果，承租人无权从应付的租金中扣除由此造成的损失。
The words cannot be applied in their full width without qualification by reference to the general purpose of the clause. The draftsman cannot possibly have intended that hire should cease in every circumstance where the full working of the vessel is prevented. This reading would be commercial nonsense, and would make the second half of the clause redundant. In my judgment, only those clauses qualify for consideration which are fortuitous, and are not the naturalresult of the ship complying with the charterers' orders. These requirementswould be complied with, in the case of fouling by marine growth, in theexceptional situation where the growth was of a wholly extraordinary andunpredictable nature: see Cosmos Bulk Transport Incorporated v. China NationalForeign Trade Transportation Corporation, [1978] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 53, a decision ona rather different form of words, where there was a very special finding offact by the arbitrator. But in the great majority of cases, the accretion ofgrowth is simply a natural consequence of the ship remaining in service, withnothing fortuitous about it. In the present case, furthermore, it is a fair inference from the findings in the award that the excessive growth stemmed fromthe abnormally long period which the vessel spent at Lourenco Marques awaiting cargo. It was the charterers' own choice to keep her at rest in tropical waters for nearly three months, and it would be unjust if they could seek financial relief for the natural consequences of the delay.
I have formed the same opinion as regards the claim under the second part of the clause. I am bound to say that I find it hard to visualize the accumulation of marine growth during the contract service as a "defect" in the hull. But even if it were, the defect arose as a natural consequence of the way in which the charterers chose to employ the ship. I do not consider that the loss of time thus caused should be deducted from the amount of time for which hire is payable.
从以上判例可以看出，缺陷只和船员数量及能否胜任，与船员本身的意愿无关；与船舶自身问题有关，与承租人方面由外界因素导致的无关，这类并不能认为是船舶本身的缺陷。
对于这个承租人立即需要的服务，不得不提2013年的The “Athena”案。在那个案子中，承租人要求船舶开往利比亚的港口外等候进一步指示，但是船长未遵守，虽然船长如果听从承租人指示，抵港后也不能靠泊，并没有造成时间损失。但上诉院的Tomlinson勋爵认为，停租条款中涉及的是立即的服务，并非整个租约服务或者整个航程，判船长未遵守承租人指示造成未能提供承租人立即需要的服务，承租人有权停租。
因此，在期租合同下，船长得听从承租人的合法的指示，如果未听从，则可能直接导致承租人有权停租。
最后，再次以Staughton勋爵在The“Berge Sund”[1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.453案中，在第459页判决书中所引援的Bucknill勋爵所说的，关于合同中模糊条款的解释问题作为全文的结尾。
Another principle which will generally be applicable is that it is for the charterer to establish facts which justify the non-payment of hire, and that any ambiguity in the off-hire clause is to be resolved in favour of the owner.In Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos), (1948)82 Ll.L.Rep. 196 at p. 199, Lord Justice Bucknill said:
The cardinal rule, if I maycall it such, in interpreting such a charter-party as this, is that the charterer will pay hire for the use of the ship unless he can bring himself within the exceptions. I think he must bring himself clearly within the exceptions. If there is a doubt as to what the words mean, then I think thosewords must be read in favour of the owners because the charterer is attempting to cut down the owners' right to hire.
在解释租船合同时，基本规则是，承租人需对使用船舶而支付租金，除非承租人能将他们引入到例外条款，承租人必须清晰明确地能够引入此例外。如果对措辞的含义有怀疑，那么将对出租人作出有利的解释，因为承租人想削减出租人获得租金的权利。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
