精彩海运视频，极具深度的专栏文章和海量的市场分析报告，以及指数、油价和气象信息

　　《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

　　Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款

　　Delays arising without the default of either shipowners or charterers

　　既非船舶所有人又非承租人的过失造成的延迟

　　2.258 In general, where delay is caused by the actions or omissions of third parties or by natural phenomena, the shipowner will have no cause of action and any loss will lie where it falls, unless there be an express provision providing to the contrary. However, what follows is a more detailed consideration of certain common causes of delay.

　　2.258一般来讲，如果由于第三方的行为或疏忽，或者因自然现象造成的延迟，除非有明示相反的规定，船东没有诉因起诉索赔承租人和只能自己承担损失。所以，下面就对一些通常的延迟原因进一步地做较为详细的讨论。

　　Congestion

　　港口拥挤

　　2.259 In Postlethwaite v. Freeland, the facts of which were given earlier, the delay to the vessel was caused by a combination of congestion and a shortage of lighters. As Lord Blackburn said:

　　But if there had been either fewer ships waiting, or more lighters available, this ship would not have been kept so long. There was evidence that the number of ships was unusually great, owing to the fact that the railway material was then being discharged.

　　And later in his speech he said:

　　. . . the point for which the ruling in Burmester v. Hodgson is in this case valuable—that in considering what is reasonable dispatch under the circumstances, the number of ships there, though unusually large, is one of the circumstances to be taken into account.

　　The House of Lords then unanimously held that there had been no unreasonable delay and therefore the delay fell to the account of the shipowner.
　　

　　2.259 在Postlethwaite v. Freeland—案中（案情在前面2.212段曾经提到过），船舶延迟是由于驳船短缺和港口拥挤的综合原因造成的。Blackburn勋爵说：

　　但是，假如等候的船舶再少些，或者有更多的驳船的话，该轮就不会耽搁那么久了。有证据表明，由于铁路物资当时正在卸下，压港船舶数量异常之多。

　　后来，他又提到：

　　……在Burmester v. Hodgson—案所裁定的观点对于本案很有价值——即在当时情况下，考虑怎样才算合理速遣的问题上，压港船舶数量，尽管通常不多，也是要考虑的其中一个因素。

　　随后，上议院一致判定：这不存在无理由的延迟，所以，这一延迟应由船东自己承担。

　　2.260 In Hulthen v. Stewart, the details of which have also been considered earlier, one of the periods of delay was after the vessel had entered the docks, where the delay in berthing was due to congestion. Dismissing the appeal to the House of Lords, the Lord Chancellor, the Earl of Halsbury, said:

　　The master has shown all possible diligence, and this is an attempt to impose an unconditional term on the respondents (the charterers) for which there is no foundation in the charterparty.

　　2.260在Hulthen v. Stewart—案中（该案的详细情况前面2.235段也已讲过），在该轮进入码头的港池之后，其中一段延迟原因是泊位的拥挤而无法靠泊。上议院驳回了其上诉，上议院议长兼首席大法官Halsbury伯爵这样说：

　　可以看出，虽然船长已尽了最大的努力，然而，试图强加给被告（承租人）不限制条件的条款，这在租船合同中时没有理论根据的。

　　2.261 It is therefore clear that delay due to congestion will not normally fall to the charterer’s account in a customary laytime charterparty, whether the delay occurs before the vessel concerned becomes an Arrived ship or after. In the former case, the delay will be on the approach or carrying voyage as the case may be, and in the latter, it will be one of the facts to be taken into account in establishing a reasonable time.

　　2.261因此，这很明显，在习惯装卸时间的租船合同中，无论该延迟是发生在船舶成为抵达船之前或是之后，港口拥挤导致的延迟通常都不是由承租人承担。如是之前的情况，指的是发生在预备航次或载货航程阶段的延迟，视当时情况认定，而后者的情况，港口拥挤就是确定合理时间所要考虑的其中一个事实因素。
　　

　　Strikes

　　罢工

　　2.262 The effect of a strike delaying loading or discharge has been considered in a number of cases. In Castlegate Steamship Co Ltd v. Dempsey and others the facts were that, by a custom of the port of discharge, the dock company undertook all the work of discharging cargo, which would otherwise have been undertaken in part by the shipowners and in part by the charterers. Because of a strike by dock labourers, discharge was delayed by four days.

　　2.262有关罢工造成的装卸货延迟的后果已在许多案例中讨论过，在Casdegate Steamship Co Ltd v. Dempsey and others—案中事实是，按照卸货港的习惯，由码头公司承揽所有的卸货作业，否则就得由船东和承租人来干。由于码头工人罢工，导致卸货作业延迟了4天。

　　2.263 In the Court of Appeal, Lord Esher MR said:

　　By reason of the very same cause, viz. the strike of the dock labourers, the share of the work for which the shipowners would originally be responsible was prevented from being done, as well as the share of the work for which the charterers would be responsible. It seems to be impossible, under these circumstances, in the case of a charterparty which ﬁxes no deﬁnite time, to say that the charterers are to bear the whole burden of what happened.

　　2.263在上诉法院，上诉法院院长Esher勋爵说：

　　正是这千篇一律的原因，即码头工人罢工，船东原先负责一部分工作（协助卸货）不能进行，同样承租人负责的工作也是不能进行。万一租船合同中没有明确的装卸时间，则在这种情况下，似乎不能让承租人承担这一全部事实后果。

　　2.264 Lord Esher then went on to comment that the result might have been the same even where the strike affected only the charterers’ part of discharge, which broadly speaking is what happened in Pantland Hick v. Raymond & Reid.

　　2.264接着Esher勋爵又评述道，即使罢工只影响承租人部分卸货工作，（判决）责任后果也是一样（由船东承担），这正是Pantland Hick v. Raymond Reid主要讲述的内容。

　　