2018-04-27
737 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
2.105 In The Vorras, having reviewed the previous cases, Sir John Donaldson MR continued:
I have to construe the words used in their natural meaning. The words are ‘‘72 hours weather permitting’’. The essence of the owners’ argument is that this phrase means ‘‘72 hours unless the weather prevents the vessel from loading’’. There would be something to be said for this if the antonym for ‘‘permitting’’ was ‘‘preventing’’. But it is not. It is ‘‘prohibiting’’. If the phrase is to be inverted, it reads ‘‘72 hours unless the weather prohibits loading’’. In my judgment the weather prohibited any vessel of this general type from loading and it is nothing to the point that owing to the presence of another vessel in the berth, the prohibition was not the operative cause which prevented the vessel from loading. I would construe ‘‘72 hours weather permitting’’ as meaning ‘‘72 hours when the weather was of such a nature as to permit loading’’.
2.105在The Vorras 案，上诉法院院长John Donaldson爵士在回顾了以往的案例之后，说到：
我不得不用这些词语本身的含义逐一对其解释，对于‘气象允许情况下72小时’，船东争议说这一短语实际上意味着‘允许的时间为72小时，除非装货作业受天气所阻’。在某种意义上讲，这好像将‘允许’的反义词理解成‘阻碍’的意思。但这是不对的。实际上应该是‘禁止’。这个短语反过来说，应是‘允许72小时，除非天气情况禁止进行装货作业’。依我判断，就是天气情况禁止这种类型的船舶进行装货作业，而同由于其他船舶占用着泊位的观点毫不相干，因为这种禁止并不是妨碍船舶装货作业直接有效的原因。所以，我将‘天气允许的情况下72小时’解释为‘当天气情况是直接允许进行装货作业的性质时，装卸时间为72小时。’
2.106 It is suggested that in referring to the weather prohibiting ‘‘any vessel of this general type from loading’’ in this passage, the Master of the Rolls was simply saying that not only would weather have prevented the specific ship from loading but any similar type of ship as well. In the Gebr Broere case, it was clearly the specific ship that the judge had in mind. It is submitted that that was correct and the reference to vessels of a general type, e.g. tanker or dry cargo, should not be taken as detracting from the principle that it is the particular ship with its type of cargo that should be considered.
2.106鉴于这段所谓的天气情况禁止‘任何这种类型的船舶进行装货作业‘的建议，上诉法院院长仅仅简单地说：天气情况不单是禁止这艘具体的船舶进行装货作业，也禁止同样类型的船舶进行装货作业。显然，在Gebr Broere—案中，法官考虑的就是那艘船。可以认为，这一做法是正确的，但对于一般类型的船舶，比如油轮或干货船，不应作为参考，因为这是对‘应考虑载运这种类型货物的具体船舶’这一原则的贬损。
2.107 In the Gebr Broere case, the judge also went on to consider the effect of weather on laytime when the vessel could not get into berth or had to leave the berth. Having pointed out that it is well established that laytime will not in the absence of exceptions be interrupted if the safety of the vessel and her cargo justifies her removal from the berth, he then went on to hold that if weather first stopped loading and then forced the vessel to leave, it must follow that in each case laytime would be interrupted. Whilst the vessel was alongside it prevented loading and it did not cease to do so when it had the added effect of rendering it necessary for the vessel to leave her berth. He continued:
If this be right, it must follow that if the vessel for her own safety, refrains from going into berth, laytime will be interrupted if the weather is such that it would both have prevented loading and required the vessel to leave her berth had she been in berth. It will not be interrupted, albeit she could not for safety reasons reach her berth if loading would not have been interrupted by weather had she been in berth.
2.107在审理Gebr Broere—案过程中，法官还考虑到天气情况对不能靠泊或不得不离泊的船舶的装卸时间有何影响。他指出这已是早已确立的原则，若没有除外条款的规定，装卸时间不应中断，如果船舶安全和货物安全证实船舶从泊位离开是正当合理的话，于是，他接着又判决道：如果天气情况首先是使装货作业停止，接着又使船舶不得不离泊，那么，必须得出结论，任何一种情况装卸时间都应中断。当船舶靠泊的情况下，它(坏天气)不仅阻止了装货作业，且没有停止影响并产生额外的效果致使船舶必须离开泊位。他又接着说：
如果这种说法是正确的话，就可得出结论：如果船舶为其自身安全考虑而拒绝靠泊时，装卸时间都可以中止的话，那么，当天气情况同时使装货作业受阻和要求船舶离开泊位其已经靠泊的泊位时，装卸时间就更应中断了。再者，虽然她是由于安全问题不能抵达泊位，但是假如她已经靠在泊位上，当时并不会因为天气原因而使装货作业中断，则装卸时间不应中断。
2.108 It is submitted that these wider considerations fit in harmoniously with the arguments put forward by Sir John Donaldson MR in The Vorras and are therefore correct, notwithstanding any criticism that may be made of the earlier part of the judgment in the Gebr Broere case.
2.108尽管可以对Gebr Broere案判词的前面部分做某种批判，但是人们还是认为那些比较广泛的考虑因素与上诉法院院长John Donaldson爵士在Vorras案中所提出的问题是相符和协调一致的，因而是正确的。
2.109 At the end of his judgment in The Vorras, Sir John Donaldson MR added:
Prima facie, any clause defining laytime is descriptive and any clause providing that time shall not count against laytime so defined... is exceptive. If it matters, I would classify the expression ‘‘72 running hours weather permitting’’ as descriptive.
The other two members of the Court of Appeal involved in this case gave shorter but concurring judgments.
2.109 在对The Vorras—案的判词的结尾，MR John Donaldson爵士补充道:
从表面上看，任何定义装卸时间的条款都是描述性的，而任何规定不计入装卸时间的条款……都是除外性的。如果确实如此的话，我就将‘天气允许情况下连续72小时’这一表述方式归入描述性一类。
参与该案审理的上诉法院的其他两位法官虽然说得不多，但均赞同上述判词。
2.110 In a descriptive laytime clause of this type when calculating interruptions, the emphasis must always be on what the weather permits. The intentions of the parties are therefore irrelevant and there is therefore no need to examine whether the weather interruption occurred at an hour at which it was either intended or even possible to work cargo—the one qualification to this, however, must be that if ‘‘weather permitting’’ is added to ‘‘working day’’ then of course it must not be on a Sunday or holiday. In setting out the laytime statement, all that is necessary is to deduct the actual time of the interruption.
2.110根据这种类型的描述性的装卸时间条款，在计算中断时，必须始终强调的是在什么情况下才算天气允许？这与当事双方的意图无关，因而，也就没有必要调査在天气造成中断的当时，是否正打算或者甚至可能要进行货物作业。不过，必须有一个限定条件是，如果把‘天气允许’加到‘工作日’之上，那当然就不能将星期日和节假日计算在内了。在填写装卸时间统计表时，完全有必要将实际中断时间扣除掉。
2.111 It occasionally happens that ‘‘weather permitting’’ is added to ‘‘weather working day’’ with the laytime allowed being described as say, ‘‘five weather working days weather permitting’’. It is submitted, however, that in these circumstances the words ‘‘weather permitting’’ add nothing and the phrase should be construed as if it simply read ‘‘five weather working days’’.
2.111偶尔也会遇到将‘天气允许’这一措辞加在‘良好天气工作日’之上的情况，例如，将允许的装卸时间描述为‘天气允许的情况下，5个良好天气工作日’。尽管如此，在这些情况下，‘天气允许’这个短语并不能改变什么，而且这一短语亦可简单地理解为‘5个良好天气工作日’的含义一样。
《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接（点击可购买）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长（微信号CaptWei）
