2018-06-02
1359 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
2.190 A different disagreement was resolved by Devlin J in V M Salgaoncar E Irmaos v. Goulandris Brothers Ltd. The crucial clause here was clause 5, the laytime clause, which provided as follows:
The cargo to be shipped at the rate of 600 tons when vessel is in berth and 350 tons whilst in stream...
2.190 在V M Salgaoncar E Irmaos v. Goulandris Brothers Ltd—案中， Devlin法官解答另一种分歧的争论。该案涉及到关键性的第5条款，关于装卸时间的条款，它是这样规定的：
该轮靠泊时的装货率为600吨，锚泊时的装货率为350吨……
2.191 The Granford, the vessel concerned, was chartered to proceed to Mormugao and there load ‘‘at one or two safe berths in charterers’ option’’ a full and complete cargo, which after loading was ascertained at 9,600 tons. The owners argued that laytime at Mormugao should be calculated by dividing the quantity actually loaded in berth by 600 and that in stream by 350. The charterers, on the other hand, said that the calculation fell to be made by applying the notional daily rates to the time the vessel was actually in berth or stream, the laytime being exhausted when the total reached 9,600 tons, the quantity loaded. The advantage to the charterers of this method was that, for the waiting period in the stream when no loading took place, they were charged at the lower rate.
2.191所涉及的船舶Granford轮，根据租船合同要前往印度Mormugao港，在那里在‘由承租人选择一个或两个安全泊位’装载满舱满载的货物，在装完货后，确定的货量为9600吨。船东辩说：在Mormugao港的装卸时间应以靠泊时的实装货量除以600，锚泊时的实装货量除以350来计算。另一方面，承租人却说：应以理论上的日装卸效率适用于（乘以）实际真正在泊或锚泊的时间，当总装货量达到9600吨时，装卸时间就算届满。这种算法对于承租人的好处是：在锚地的等候时间内，没进行装货作业，就应按低效率来予以计算。
2.192 The respective arguments were summarised by Devlin J as follows:
The charterers submit that you must count the waiting days because that is what clause 5 requires: ‘‘The cargo to be shipped at the rate of 600 tons when a vessel is in a berth and 350 tons whilst in stream’’. The fallacy in the owners’ calculation, they submit, is that it counts only the days on which loading takes place and treats the clause as if it read: ‘‘The cargo to be loaded (shipped) at the rate of 600 tons when vessel is loading in berth and 350 tons whilst loading in stream’’.
Upholding the owners’ contentions, the judge continued:
Clause 5 is not really prescribing what the ship has actually got to do. It is setting a standard by reference to which the lay days can be calculated. The lay days are not intended to be made more or less according to the directions which may be given to the ship. The only thing in this type of clause that depends on actuality is the exact quantity of the cargo loaded in each place; if that were known in advance, the exact period for loading could be specified in the charterparty.
2.192 Devlin法官总结了他们各自的观点，说：
承租人提出的观点是必须将等候时间计入，因为第5条款规定：‘该轮靠泊时的装货率为600吨，锚泊时的装货率为350吨’。而他们认为船东的计算方法谬误之处在于：它仅计算进行装货作业的时间，也就是仅把该条款看成是：‘该轮在靠泊装货时，其效率为600吨；在锚泊装货时，其效率为350吨。’
Devlin法官支持船东的看法，接着说：
第5条款并没有真正规定船舶实际上应该去做什么。它设定的是一种计算装卸时间的参照标准，装卸时间不会因给予船舶的安排指令不同而变得或多或少。对于这类条款，唯一要做的事情是基于实际情况确定在每一个地方所装的准确的货物量；如果这可以事先知道的话，则装货的时间就可以准确地在合同中加以规定了。
《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）
