2018-05-16
839 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
2.150 A similar provision was considered by Devlin J in Compania de Navigaci´on Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus & Cie. In this case, clause 5 of the charter provided for the cargo to be loaded ‘‘at an average rate of not less than 150 metric tons per available workable hatch per . . . ’’. In argument, neither party suggested that there was any relevant difference in meaning between the phrase ‘‘working hatch’’ in The Sandgate and ‘‘available workable hatch’’ as in the present case, at least as far as the basic calculation of laytime was concerned.
2.150 在Compania de Navigadon Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus Cie案，Devlin 法官对这一类似的条文进行了审理。在该案中，租船合同的第5条款规定：平均装货率为‘每……每个可作业的舱口不少于150公吨’。在争议中，双方当事人没有任何一方认为在该案中的‘可作业的舱口’与The Sandgate —案中所用的那个相应的‘作业舱口’的这一短语的意义有任何不同，至少在装卸时间的计算方面应该是一样的。
2.151 The shipowners, however, contended that laytime for loading should be calculated by reference to the number of available and workable hatches at a given time. As long as there were five available workable hatches, loading should have proceeded at an average daily rate of 750 tons. When this was reduced to three at the second load port, loading should have been 450 tons and, when the last parcel of cargo was loaded at the same port with only two hatches available, the average rate should have been 300 tons.
The charterers, on the other hand, argued that loading should be calculated by dividing by 150 the largest quantity of cargo loaded in any one of the vessel’s holds.
2.151尽管如此，船东争论说装货时间应参照给定时间内可以作业而且实际上也在作业的舱口数进行计算。只要这有5个可作业的而且正作业的舱口，装货率就应为平均每天750吨。当在第二装港减至3个舱口时，装货率就变为450吨，同样地，在该港最后仅有两个可作业的舱口时，装货率就变为300吨了。
相反，承租人却争辩道：装货时间应按照该轮装货量最大的那个舱口的货量除以150吨来计算。
2.152 In upholding the charterers’ contentions, Devlin J said:
There is, I think, an overwhelming objection to the owners’ construction of the clause. It is that on that construction the number of lay days depends upon the way in which the charterers choose to load the vessel. There may possibly be good reasons why they should load one hold after the other, but there may also be bad ones; and on the owners’ construction there is no way of distinguishing between excusable delay and wanton delay . . .
. . . the fundamental error in them [the owners’ submissions] is that they treat clause 5 as if it were laying down a method of loading. If it were, it would be appropriate to suggest that it should not be construed as requiring the charterers to load each hold each day at exactly the same rate and for exactly the same time. Clause 5 in my opinion is not prescribing a method, but setting a standard; it is drawing a notional line above which there will be a bonus and below a penalty . . .
. . . But is reasonable to think that the standard set will be one which assumes that as far as possible work will go on simultaneously on all the holds, because that is the way that is most economical of the ship’s time.
2.152 Devlin法官支持承租人的论点，说：
就船东对该条款的解释，我有强有力的反对理由。根据他们的解释，装卸天数的多少取决于承租人所选用的装货方式。至于他们为什么一货舱接着一货舱地进行装货或许有很好的理由，但这也可能会有最糟的理由；然而，按照船东的解释，可免责的延迟与不负责任的肆意延迟之间就无法加以区分了……
……其中（船东的辩护陈词）主要错误是：他们将合同的第5条款看作好像是一个关于装货方式的规定。如果它确实是那样的话，那就可以恰如其分地提出，不应该把它解释成要求承租人每天在完全相同的时间内以完全相同的速率去装载每个货舱。在我看来，第5条款并不是规定了一个装货的方法，而是设定了一个标准。它划出了一条概念性的界线，在其之上即可受奖，而在其之下则应受罚……
……但是，这完全合理地认为，这一设定的标准是假定所有货舱同时尽可能迅速地进行作业，因为这是最节省船舶时间的方法。
2.153 In The Sandgate there was only one discharge port and although in Compania de Navigaci´Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus & Cie there were two load ports, it does not appear to have been suggested that the number of load or discharge ports, as the case may be, made any difference.
2.153在The Sandgate—案中仅有一个卸货港，尽管在Compania de Navigacion Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus Cie —案中有两个装货港，但看起来尚未提出过，装货港或卸货港的数量，视情况而定，会产生什么不同。
2.154 This point, however, was considered by Hobhouse J in Cargill Incorporated v. Marpro Ltd (The Aegis Progress). Cargill were the sellers of two parcels of sugar, f.o.b., with Antwerp and Dunkirk nominated as loading ports. The contract of sale provided for a rate of loading of 150 tonnes per workable hatch. Prior to calling at Antwerp, the Aegis Progress had called at Rouen and loaded a part cargo with which Cargill were unconcerned.
2.154 然而，有关这一点，Hobhouse法官在Cargill Incorporated v. Marpro Ltd (The Aegis Progress)—案中曾经探讨过。Cargill(嘉吉)是FOB(离岸价)价格的两票糖的卖家，指定装港为比利时安特卫普和法官敦刻尔克。买卖合同中规定装货率为每可作业的舱口 150吨。在抵达安特卫普前，‘Aegis Progress’轮挂靠了法官鲁昂港，并在那儿装了部分与Cargill无关的货物。
2.155 The buyers of the cargo argued that as four of the vessel’s seven holds were available at each load port, the total quantity of cargo loaded at both ports should be divided by four and the loading rate applied to this, notwithstanding that the available holds were not the same at each port. The sellers, on the other hand, said they were entitled to make separate calculations for each load port based on the largest quantity loaded in any one hold at that port. Although stressing that the clause should be construed as requiring a single calculation, nevertheless Hobhouse J held that in this case the calculation should be based, not on the hold with the greatest quantity from both ports, but on the sum of the hold with the greatest quantity loaded at Antwerp and the corresponding one at Dunkirk. He concluded:
In most cases the required calculation can be done by identifying the critical hatch or hold and then calculating the laytime for that hatch; in exceptional cases and this is one, more than one hatch is critical and therefore more than one hatch has to be taken into account in calculating the laytime.
2.155该货物的买方争辩说在每个装港，该轮的7个舱口中均有4个可用，装货率应按照两个装港所装的全部货量除以4来计算，而不必考虑在每一个港口它的可用舱口是否是相同。相反，卖家却认为他们有权对每一个装货港并根据在该港任何一个装载量最大的舱口分别计算。尽管强调该条款应解释为要求单一计算，Hobhouse法官仍然判定：在该案中，计算不应按照两个港口的最大货量，而是按照在安特卫普所装的最大货量和在敦刻尔克还要装货的那个相应的舱口货量二者之和平均得出所装的最大货量为基础进行计算。他的结论是：
在许多案例中，要进行必要的计算，首先要确认关键的舱口或货舱，然后计算出这一舱口的装卸时间；在较特殊的案例以及在本案中，不止一个关键的舱口，因而在计算装卸时间时，就应该考虑一个以上的舱口。 (此案参考‘航运实务丛谈第十一册’《装卸时间与滞期费》，杨良宜著，大连海事大学出版社，2006年11月第1版；第12章¬——合约中固定装卸时间的表述与计算/第6.5节)
2.156 Furthermore, said Hobhouse J, earlier in his judgment,
When one is considering workability one must disregard uneven loading (or discharge) which arises from the shippers’ choice as opposed to reasons which disable them from working the hatches evenly.
It may therefore, as it did in this case, also become necessary to correct the quantities actually loaded in each hatch to produce a theoretical figure which would have been loaded in each hold, had loading been done evenly. It is the biggest of the corrected figures for each port that then goes into the calculation.
2.156此外，Hobhouse法官在其判词的前面部分说道：
当一个人考虑（装卸货）可作业性时，他必定不会考虑到装载（或卸载）的不均衡性，这种不均衡性来自于托运人艰难的选择，相对应的其它不能使他们做出均衡作业的明智选择的理由。
因此，如在本案中一样，或许也有必要修正一下每个舱口实际的装货量，得出每个货舱本应能装载的理论数值，如果装载是均衡地完成的话。修正后的最大货量数值就作为每个港口用于计算装卸时间的数值。
《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）
