2018-05-22
1526 第一条A轮在法国的北部的SAN CIPRAIN港，前后在港时间总共正好25天，合同中关于在港超时所引起的污底，在第86条规定如下：
Clause 86 ：
If the vessel’s speed is reduced as a result of the bottom fouling by reason of the vessel being in a port or anchorage for a period in excess of twenty (20) days in tropical water or twenty five (25) days in other areas than tropical, the Owners are not to be responsible for reduction inspeed of the vessel until such time as her next scheduled dry dock arranged by Owners or underwater hull cleaning to be arranged by Charterers at their timeand cost whichever earlier.
由于船舶在热带水域中进入港口或锚地的时间超过二十（20）天，或在热带水域以外的其他地区二十五（25）天内，因船底污染而导致船舶速度降低，出租人对船舶速度的降低不负责，直至出租人安排的下一个预定干船坞或由承租人自行承担时间和费用安排的水下船体清洁为止（以较早者为准）。
但是M轮SAN CIPRAIN港，因为港口方面的安排，从锚地移到港外，再到锚地；来回折腾了三次，移泊及在港外的时间加起来超过6天。鉴于这种特殊情况，笔者给予以下意见：
鉴于合同没有要求承租人必须去安排水下检验及清底，相反而是说，如果速度损失是因为污底造成的，出租人不负责。那么在这种明确的措辞下，如果有速度损失，举证的责任在出租人身上。出租人得去证明速度损失是由于污底造成的，还得去举证之前没有发生污底，提供一系列的文件，包括船壳油漆，维修保养计划等等去证明速度损失不是由于船舶本身，而是由于在SAN CIPRAIN港污底造成的。出租人的责任可参The “Pamphilos”案。
作为承租人，最大的责任是，在出租人证明了速度损失是由于在SAN CIPRAIN港产生污底造成的情况下，对此速度损失负责。而相关的检验，清底费用得船东自己承担。因为条款并没有说检验费用由承租人承担，甚至都未提检验所花的时间由承租人承担。那么正常的逻辑是，出租人花了时间费用去证明了有污底产生，那么出租人对速度就不再负责。
条款的后半部，说明的是责任终止时间，即在出租人既定的进坞前，或者承租人自行安排清底之前，出租人对速度不负责；相反，之后出租人便得为船舶履约表现负责。
据船长的报告，在港外漂航期间并没有需消耗低硫油；但在欧盟国家，已经明确规定了，船舶在抵达港口的时候需要消耗低硫油。因此可以判定船舶已经离港，否则船长私自改烧高硫重油，将违反规定，将导致被罚款甚至被滞留的严重局面。参船舶的轨迹图，如下：
从上图可以看出，船舶的航行轨迹；根本就不是在港内，而是在海上航行。如放大后的下图显示，尤其是4月4日，M轮开出去近100海里。
航行区域如Netpass截图显示超过200海里。可以说M轮像条鱼一样，在比斯开湾里游来游去。
继续放大，看到水深线，显示已经超过120米。在如此水深的海上航行，无论如何都不可能导致海生物生长。
合同对超时规定的是in port and or anchorage，这里说的是in，即在港内或锚地；而与in相反的是out，正常理解为港内，港外。在港外的时间不能算是在港内的时间。因此，在港内或锚地的时间并没有超过合同规定的25天，承租人对任何速度损失无需负责。
如果该措辞改为“at port and or anchorage”，解释起来可能会不一样。关于港口的定义，可以参Baltic Code 2014:
Port shall mean any area where vessels load or discharge cargo and shall include, but not limited to, berths, wharves, anchorages, buoys and offshore facilities as well as places outside the legal, fiscal or administrative area where vessels are ordered to wait for their turn no matter the distance from that area.
港口是指船舶装卸货物的任何区域，包括但不限于泊位，码头，锚地，浮标和近海设施以及法定，财政或行政区域以外的地方，船舶被命令等待靠泊，无论离该地区的距离。
此外，到港外去是港方的要求，或者是代理的要求，但港方或者代理的要求，并非承租人的代理人为了船舶不产生污底的目的，因此承租人对港方和代理的指示无需负责。对于这方面的解释，可以参The“Isabelle”案。在该案中，Robert Goff法官认为这个条文可能缺乏明确性，但他确信，就其真正的解释而言，只是指在相关的港口将船舶交给的代理人，也就是说在那个港口作为船舶代理人，应该是租家为此提名的代理人。这个结论是从该条款中使用的词语中得出的，但是通过信息得出这样的结论是强有力的，即在一些仲裁中海事仲裁员得出了同样的结论，有趣的是，在下一版的Shellvoy的格式中是毫无疑问的。此外，根据法院代理以普通方式作为船舶代理人行事的证据，向船东管理代理人提供信息，处理向船舶提供燃油，水和现金，并向船东支付在Bejaia港的船舶和代理费。而关于准备就绪通知书，没有证据表明代理以任何方式作为租家的代理，但是对于航次租船人的港口代理人（而不是定期租船人的代理人）。事实上，即使是船长的电报准备就绪通知书，表面上也没有被送到代理作为承租人的代理人，而是作为船舶代理人传送给他们进行转发。在这种情况下，Robert Goff法官认为，即使代理给了船舶等泊的命令，但他们从来不是租家为此目的的授权代理。
The clause is perhaps lackingin clarity, but I am satisfied that on its true construction it means simply that the agents to which the vessel was to be addressed at the relevant port, that is to say which were to act as ship's agents at that port, were to be such agents as were nominated for that purpose by the charterers.That conclusion is derived from the words used in the clause, but I am fortified in reaching that conclusion by information that in a number of arbitrations the same conclusion has been reached by maritime arbitrators, and it is interesting to note that in the next edition of the Shellvoy form the point is put beyond doubt. Furthermore, on the evidence before the Court CNAN acted throughout in the ordinary manner as ships' agents, furnishing information to the owners' managing agents, dealing with the supply of bunkers,water and cash for master, and billing the owners for their disbursements on the ship's behalf at Bejaia and for broker age fees. Putting on one side the point on notice of readiness, there is no evidence that CNAN acted in any wayas agents for the charterers, there being little function for a voyagecharterers' agent (as opposed to a time charterers' agent) at a loading port;indeed, even the master's telegraphic notice of readiness appears on its face to have been sent not to CNAN as charterers' agents but submitted to them as ship's agents for onward transmission. In these circumstances I am satisfied that, even if CNAN had given the vessel orders to wait, they were never authorized agents of the charterers for this purpose.
在该案中承租人提出诉讼的最后三个理由，RobertGoff法官认为可以很简短地处理。第三个理由，港口当局下令是作为承租人的代理人。基于已经给出的理由，他们并不是。第四个理由，由于拥堵和天气条件的共同作用，承租人在船舶不能使用泊位的期间，暗示下令船舶等待。Robert Goff法官认为没有任何理由说在合同第14条下，承租人会给予暗示的命令。关于最后的理由，在事实上或法律上根本没有任何放弃或禁止反言的基础，承租人或其代理人没有相关的陈述，或出租人对真诚方面的任何表示有任何作为或不为。
综合以上观点，第一，在港外的时间并不能认为是在港内，因此在港或锚地并未超过合同规定的25天，承租人未违约，无需为速度损失负责；第二，举证责任在出租人，相关的费用得出租人自行承担；第三，港方或代理指示船舶到港外去，并不能作为承租人的代理人来行事，因此承租人对该等指示无需负责。
但遗憾的是，承租人协会的律师认为，承租人仍然有义务为出租人安排清底，否则出租人有权向承租人提出后续的索赔。但律师似乎给不出合理的理由，为何承租人需对此负责；也没有对in给出恰当的解释。甚至可能协会的律师没有查核船舶的轨迹图，不清楚具体情况，不清楚船舶所处位置的海洋环境，水深已经超过了120米。
相反，承租人咨询过BIMCO，BIMCO认为就此条款，没有硬性规定承租人需为出租人安排清底，条款对出租人非常不利。笔者完全赞同BIMCO的意见，基于前文所述的理由，承租人没有任何理由须为此负责。
在另一个方面，如果承租人没有特别指示，那么甚至可以找出租人索赔损害赔偿。港方安排到港外等泊，但并没有赋予船长到处乱跑的权利。
第二条H轮，争议发生在鲅鱼圈港，前后在港24.75天，超合同规定的14天。合同第98条规定如下：
Clause 98
If the vessel, by the order of Charterers, to stay in a port / place / river where she suffers bottom fouling due to prolonged stay for a period exceeding 14 consecutive days or to stay in a range of ports for a period exceeding 14 days in which total navigating time between ports is less than 48 hours, then Charterers to arrange, at that port or in case no such underwater cleaning available at that port then at first available port /place, underwater cleaning at their time / risks / expenses / account, otherwise Owners shall have the right, at Charterers' time / risks / expenses / account, to arrange underwater cleaning at said port or at next convenient / available port where such underwater cleaning facilities are available / practical. Furthermore any representation of vessel's speed and consumption shall cease tobe applicable, effective from the vessel's departure from such port, and the Charterers shall be responsible for any reduction of speed and/or excess consumption due to bottom fouling, even after Charterers redelivered the vessel, until required underwater cleaning has been carried out, or latest until vessel is next placed to drydocking.
即：如果船舶根据承租人的命令留在港口/位置/河流中，由于长期停留超过连续14天的时间而导致船底污染，或停留在一系列港口超过14天的时间，在港口之间的总航行时间小于48小时，则承租人在该港口安排或在该港口无法安排水下清底，然后在第一可行的港口/地点，以他们的时间/风险/费用/支出下进行水下清底，否则当这些水下清底设施可用/可行时，出租人有权以承租人的时间/风险/费用/支出来安排在该港口或下一个方便/可用的港口进行水下清底。此外，任何关于船舶速度和燃油消耗的表述均不再适用，从船舶离开该港口开始生效，并且承租人应对由于底部污染造成的速度和/或超量消耗降低负责，即使在承租人还船后，直到进行了需要的水下清底，或者最近直到船舶下一次进干船坞。
在港超时后，承租人很自觉发了如下电邮询问清底的事。
As per CP clause 98,‘’if vsl, by the order of charterers to stay in a port… for a period exceeding14 consecutive days…. Then charters to arrange at that port or in case if nosuch underwater cleaning available at that port then first available port,underwater cleaning at their time/ risk/ expenses account…’’
As owners understand that underwater inspection and cleaning is not available at
We kindly ask if ownerscan arrange for underwater inspection (and cleaning if necessary) at
We have below company which we worked at
Await owner’s reply.
笔者于是答复如下，声明是承租人自己的责任。
Thank for charterers’ last, but in accordance with c/p clause 98, which should charterers to arrange and at their cost/time.
If charterers is impossible to arrange, Owners could arrange for and on behalf of charterers.But charterers please reconfirm all consequence costs/expenses/time lost etc which to be for charterers’ sole account.
期租的承租人根据他们的航次任务安排，并未安排H轮到新加坡作水下检验和清底，结果H轮顺利执行了两个航次，均未有航速索赔，似乎船舶不受污底影响。
但是不能因为可能没有污底就免除承租人的责任或者“讹”点钱。在还船前，就安排水下检验和清底，进行了多次沟通，期间给承租人发了如下电邮：
As impossible to conduct in laden condition, so if in ballast condition, usual need about 1 day if conduct in
Awaiting for charterers’ comments if any or acceptance by return.
承租人对此报价似乎不满意，认为尽管在鲅鱼圈呆了24.75天，但由于温度较低，因此对发生海生物污染保持怀疑；而且船舶还能按合同履行而没有任何速度索赔；因此承租人认为他们只愿意，在船舶挂靠新加坡的时候支付水下检查费用。
However,would like to point out the following:
1. Despite,vsl stay at BAYUQUAN for 24.75 days, due to the water temperature at that time of year in northern China, I am doubtful vessel had accumulated such marine life to cause any fouling.
2. Asmentioned above, doubtful vsl had accumulated any significant marine life during her port stay. Vsl has performing as per c/p and there hasnot been any speed claims.
3. Taking the above into account, would like to propose the following to headowners: that we are willing to pay for the UWI only in
承租人的理由看似蛮有道理，但不能顺着承租人的观点走。于是又发了如下电邮，指出条款并没有说在低温条件下承租人就无需对在港超时负责，如果承租人无意安排或赔偿，那么将保留所有索赔的权利。
Thanks for charterers’ last, but regret that Owners are unable to accept charterers’ last proposal.
As per c/p, there is nomention if in low temperature condition charterers will not hold responsible for prolong stay.
If charterers no willing to arrange before redelivery or no willing to compensate as per owners’ last offer, Owners will have to reserve their all rights to claim back against any speed claims or time lost/bunker over consumption etc in any further voyages.
Charterers are called upon to reconsider their position asap.
承租人继续认为，合同条款说的是，如果她遭受污底…认为没有证据表明船舶遭受了污底。同时认为出租人30,000美金的要求不合理，并确认在还船前将安排水下检验，已证明没有污底，然后条款其它部分将无效。
If owners read the clause carefully, they will see that the first sentence begins ‘IF…the vessel suffers bottom fouling…. ‘
There is no evidence of fouling, and the water conditions make it unlikely (as owners areno doubt aware). In order to determine whether cleaning is necessary, the hull needs to be inspected. There is no point in cleaning a clean ship.
Owners seemsto want to make $30,000 regardless of whether the vessel needs work or not.That is wrong.
Chtrs will look into arranging an u/w inspection at anchor in
到此目的已经达到一半了，但还是继续发如下电邮给承租人，其中关于报价部分，加了sub to。这个措辞，是对出租人很好的保护，不在此说明。
Thanks for charterers’ last, But regret that Owners are unable to accept charterers’ allegation.
If charterers no willing to compensate Owners, they should to arrange under water inspection/cleaningbefore redelivery. Anyhow in spirit of good cooperation, Owners could accept some discount for usd30,000, this will be sub to manger’s approval.
承租人认为在冷的水域不可能发生污底，出租人索要30,000美金完全没有道理，并确认在还船前将安排水下检验，证明没有污底。
What allegation are owners unable to accept? That fouling tends not to occur in icy waters? That cleaning is not necessary on an unfouled hull? That owners want$30,000 regardless of whether the hull needs leaning or not?
Please clarify
As already stated, chtrs will look to arrange an inspection to show that hull is notfouled prior to redelivery
Ref bunkers– Reverting. Where is next port of call after redelivery?
在H轮靠泊最后一个还船港口前夕，继续发如下电邮，并提醒船长做好监督工作。
Further to our previous exchange, For avoid any misunderstanding, Charterers please double check from their side and reconfirm whether they will arrange under water inspection or not at XXX.
If will arrange, Charterers please provide diver company their full contact details.
But if charterers decide not to arrange such inspection/cleaning, Owners will have to reserve their all rights to claim back against the charterers’ breach, any underperformance claims from further voyages will be for charterers’ account.
Master also reading this in copy, If will arrange under water inspection, Please pay your keen attention to their CCTV/Video to ascertain the condition of all submerge portion, especially propeller, hull, bottom, sea chest etc. thanks.
最终，在该轮靠泊卸货过程中，承租人安排了水下检验，但结果发现有污底。在得知有污底之后的第一时间，发如下电邮给承租人，要求其履行租约责任，安排清底；如果不清，需确认承担后续的任何航速索赔，直到在下一个合适的港口安排清底。同时要求承租人给清晰明确的指示，下了引水后是直接还船还是继续在锚地等水下清底。
Assume the charterers also duly receipt under water inspection from their diver company.
Refer to their report,hull vertical side between draft 1.5 Mto 8.5 M, over rate is abt 70% and average length of marine growth is abt 5CM.
Consideration hull was heavily fouling by marine growth, Charterers are called upon to fulfill their c/p obligation to arrange cleaning before redelivery. If charterers no willing to arrange cleaning at this time at Lanqiao, may decide to redeliver the vesselto Owners after DLOSP xxx tomorrow. Charterers please confirm they willhold whole responsible for any underperformance claims for further voyages,until they arrange cleaning at next suitable port.
For avoid any misunderstanding, Charterers please send their clear instruction to the Master,whether his vessel will be redelivered to Owners basis DLOSP XXX with unclean bottom/hull condition or thevessel should to stay at anchorage to wait for further cleaning. Needless tosay that before redelivery, the vessel is remain on hire.
当时恰逢周末，与承租人沟通联系不是很顺畅。对于下引水后是否直接还船，还是接着安排清底不清楚，因此要求承租人必须给予明确清晰的指示，同时要求船长在没有收到指示前，先在锚地等，如果电话也打不通，最终仍然未有承租人的指示，就先离港前往下个航次。这封电邮包含了承租人的指示，合理时间的界定问题，也不在此说明。
Dear All,
Good day!
We note from the Master,still not yet received charterers' further instruction by now.
Fyi, after DLOSP the vessel will choose one suitable place to wait for charterers' instruction.
But if still could not receive charterers' clear instruction within 1800hrs today, Owners WILL accept charterers' breach, no willing to arrange cleaning before redelivery and thevessel will sail for her next port.
Master also reading thisin copy, Before you sail from XXX, Please call charterers again. If you still could not reach them or not received any instruction from them, You may sail for next port by then in order to avoid time loss.
Owners' all rights are fully and expressly reserved.
最后收到了承租人如下电邮，下了引水后直接还船。
Fgos vessel will redeliver at dlosp , since cleaning not possible at xxx chtrs would need to either deliver unclean as per owners proposal , or arrange cleaning at nextavailable port as per cp terms
之后承租人还争辩说想赔30,000美金给出租人，但被出租人拒绝；最终承租人赔付44,000美金来免除责任，出租人自行安排水下检验清底。
其实H轮和M轮污底条款都面临同一个问题，即如果发生污底是由于在港超时引起的；这个时候如果没有第一时间就去安排检验，事后再检验发生污底，承租人得举证，污底确实是由于之前在港超时引起的，那么将面临举证困难。如果M轮和出租人辩称不会产生污底，那么出租人肯定会要求去做水下检验，那么一旦有污底，承租人将得负责清底。因此M轮，只是从另外一个角度，主张在港内或锚地的时间未超合同规定的25天，那么在这种情况下，承租人将无需负责。
但反观H轮，因为在鲅鱼圈之后的两个航次都没有航速索赔，如果直接还船而不安排水下检验，那么出租人将面临风险。承租人在没有航速索赔的初步证据下，也有理由相信没有污底发生。在这种情况下，只能采用激将法，首先要求补偿，再声称保留之后所有索赔的权利。承租人肯定会认为不合理，因为感觉没有污底，出租人还索要赔偿，完全没道理。因此选择去安排水下检验来证明，没有污底。承租人肯去安排水下检验，已经达到出租人预期的效果，免去事后的举证责任：如果有污底，承租人接着安排清底；但如果选择直接还船，将违约，出租人有索赔任何损失的权利。
因此，出租人为保护自己利益，最好将条款修改如下：
If the vessel, by the order of Charterers, prolong stay at ports / places / rivers for a period exceeding 15 consecutive days or to stay in a range of ports for aperiod exceeding 15 days in which total navigating time between ports is less than 48 hours, then Charterers to arrange, at that port or in case no such underwater inspection & cleaning available at that port then at firstavailable port / place, underwater inspection/cleaning at their time / risks /expenses / account, otherwise Owners shall have the right, at Charterers' time/ risks / expenses / account, to arrange underwater inspection/cleaning at saidport or at next convenient / available port where such underwater inspection/cleaning facilities are available / practical. Furthermore any representation of vessel's speed and consumption shall cease to be applicable,effective from the vessel's departure from such port, and the Charterers shall be responsible for any reduction of speed and/or excess consumption due tobottom fouling, even after Charterers redelivered the vessel, until required underwater cleaning has been carried out, or latest until vessel is next placed to drydocking.
该条款将不再局限于，污底是由于在港超时引起的，而是直接要求，如果在港超时，不管是否会造成污底，承租人都得去安排水下检验和清底。
文中所述的H轮，之后又签订了一份期租合同，在NYPE46格式的前言第9-10行已经明确删除了。删除了这部分有什么效果呢？如Lorentzen v.White (1942) 74 Ll.L.Rep. 161案中，Atkinson法官在第163页判决书中说：
There are two decisions to that effect: Hurstv. Usborne, 18 C.B. 144;French v. Newgass, 3 C.P.D. 163.I need only read the headnote in the latter case:
A description in a charter-party that a vessel is of a particular class is not a continuing warranty, but applies only to the classification at the time the charter-partyis made. Hurstv. Usborne approved of.
If that is true as to classification it must be equally true as to the description of the capacity of the ship. After all, the classification is not a condition, and the description of the capacity of a ship merely amounts to a warranty that at the date of the charter-party the ship was of that capacity, and it does not amount to a warranty that the ship should continue to be of that capacity.
以及未公开报道的The “Matrix”案及The “XXX Rainbow”案，仲裁员认为，在没有其它条款对船舶的航速油耗作出持续性保证的情况下，删除了前言9-10行，即意味着仅仅在签订租约，或者在交船的时候保证船舶的速度油耗；没有持续性保证，交船之后的航速油耗损失不可索赔。如仲裁员如下所说：
We have carefully considered the parties’ arguments and the authorities relied on. The position was by no means clear. However, it appears that, where a vessel is fixed on terms which include lines 9-10 of the NYPE judicial opinion is divided as to whether the speed and consumption figures constitute as at (i) the date of thefixture or (ii) the delivery of the vessel into the charterparty.
The charterparty inquestion in this case did not contain lines 9-10 because they had beenexpressly deleted and replaced by clause 29. That clause is headed “Vessel’s Description” and sets out the vessel’s capabilities. It does not include anywords such as “throughout the currency of this charterparty” or “during the currency of this charterparty” which would have suggested that the vessel’s description as set out in the clause was to be maintained throughtout the charterparty period.
In the light of theabove we have concluded that there was no continuing warranty as to the vessel’s performance contained in the charterparty. The Charterers did not advance any alternative case on the failure to maintain and therefore their claim forunder-performance/over-consumption does not succeed.
从几个判例可以看出，合约处处是陷阱，只是缺少发现的眼睛；不是没有陷阱，只是发现不了。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
