2018-08-11
2086 【关键词】LOI、租金、到期、索赔
在较早的文章，已经说明了在期租合同下租金支付不是条件条款，船东如果因为承租人晚付租金或者疏忽导致租金没有及时收到而撤船，可能导致船东违约及无法索赔合约终止所带来的损失。在目前的市场下，真正被撤船的可能性不大，但是与撤船类似的，withdrawperformance或者withhold service就经常发生。船东在认为没有收到租金的情况下，往往选择关舱不让卸货来逼迫租家继续支付租金。但是这种做法，尤其是在租金尚未到期的情况下，船东的关舱行为是否正当呢？
本文通过对The “Best Trader”轮的争议来说说这方面的内容。
一、 基本情况
在2018年5月3日，BestTrader轮（1998年造的巴拿马型船，以下简称“该轮”）的船东与租家签订了一份航次期租合同，租约以修改过的NYPE93格式，并带有附加条款。租家将该轮背靠背转租给下家，下家安排了一个印尼装煤炭到国内卸的航次任务。该轮交船后到印尼装煤炭，于5月30日抵达卸港钦州港，但是因为压港及煤炭进口手续等问题，该轮最终7月6日才靠泊卸货。
在锚地等泊时间超过合同第62条规定的天数25天，下家于是安排了水下检查并清底。船东认可该清底公司，并且船长对清底结果表示满意，并对清底报告签字盖章确认。
该航次顺利结束，没有什么争议。合同相关的主要条款如下：
船舶的航速油耗规定：
FULL SPEED:
ABT 13 KT(B)/ ABT 11.5KT(L) AT ABT 25.5MT IFO AND ABT 0.1 MT MGO;
PORTCONSUMPTION ABOUT 2.7 MT IFO; PORT CONSUMPTION IN COLD OR IN VERY WARM WEATHERADD 1 MT IFO PER DAY EXTRA.
SPEED/CONSUMPTIONSIN GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS I.E:
WINDS NOTEXCEEDING BEAUFORT SCALE FORCE 4, SEA CONDITION NOT EXCEEDING DOUGLAS SEA STATE3,/OR 1,25 MTRS SEA WAVE HEIGHT WITH NO ADVERSE CURRENTS OR NEGATIVE INFLUENCEOF SWELL.
THE SPEED SODESCRIBED IS ON AVERAGE BASIS TAKEN OVER THE ENTIRE CHARTER PERIOD, INCLUDINGBALLAST VOYAGE(S), PROVIDED NO UNDERWATER PARTS FOULING DUE TO STAY FOR 25 ORMORE DAYS IN PORT(S) OR ANCHORAGE(S) OR COMBINED. IF THE SHIP STAY FOR SUCHPERIOD CHARTERERS TO REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING THE VESSEL'S UNDERWATERPARTS AND PROPELLER PRIOR TO REDELIVERY, TO OWNERS’SATISFACTION."ABOUT" MEANS HAVING A DOUBLE ALLOWANCE OF 0.5 KNOT ONSPEED AND 5% ON BUNKERS BOTH IN OWS FAVOR.
3. HIRE USD xxx DAILY INCLOT, FIRST HIRE PAYABLE 15 DAYS WITH ESTI WHOLE CONSUMED BUNKER VALUE IN ADVANCE WITHIN 3 WORKING DAY AFTER DELY.
DELY/REDL BSS LT, HIRE CALCULATION BSS GMT. THEN 7 DAYS HIRE PAID ADVANCED.THE FINAL HIRE SHALL BE SETTLED WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER VSLS REDELIVERY.
4. ONE TCT VIA
VIA SPS SBS SAS AAAA AWIWL WITH HARMLESS/LAWFULL CGO, COAL IN BULK, EST DUR ABT 20 DAYS WOG. VSL'S ROUTE BETWEEN
5. REDELY DLOSP 1 SP SOUTH CHINA,Not North OF NINGDE ATDNSHINC
10. SHOULD ORIGINALBILL(S) OF LADING NOT BE AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE PORT UPON VESSEL'S ARRIVAL, OWNERS AND MASTER AGREE TO DISCHARGE THE ENTIRE CARGO AGAINST CHARTERERS SIGNED SINGLE LETTER OF INDEMNITY IN OWNERS P AND I CLUB WORDINGS. ALL CARGO TO BE RELEASED AGAINST ORIGINAL BS/L.
13.Charterers may supply weather routing service to the Master / vessel duringany voyage under the present Charter-Party. The Master is to comply with the reporting procedure of the weather service, also to follow recommendations with regard the optimum course. Vessel performance shall be monitored by weatherrouting service if Charterers so require.
In case of discrepancy between log book and weather routingservice,the result of the independent weather routing service's judgment to bebinding for both parties.
62. Extended Port Stay / BottomFouling
Whenever the Vessel is scheduled to call at a port where risks of long stay at the roads due to congestion prevail, the Master at the Charterers’ request shall exercisedue diligence to victual Vessel in every respect so as to allow such long staywithout undue deviation/time lost on account of insufficient provision or freshwater and/or any other supply/stores. In the event of Charterers ordering thevessel to lay-up or to port(s) where the vessel’s stay in port(s) or berth(s)or anchorage(s) or combined is extended for 20 days or more in a Tropical Zoneor 25 days or more in any other area and bottom fouling occurs, Charterers to provide immediate underwater cleaning and chests/rudder/propeller polishing at their time and expense and to owners’ satisfaction. The stay shall not be interruptedby the vessel shifting between waiting place(s) and/or anchorage(s) and/orberth(s), nor by sea passage(s) of less than 18(eighteen) hours. Bottom foulingin these circumstances is not a risk which Owners agree to bear.
Inthe event that Charterers refuse/fail to provide immediate underwater cleaningand chests/rudder/propeller polishing, Owners’ representation of the vessel’sspeed and bunker consumption to be null and void ,effective from such port(s)or lay up, as the case may be unless or until so cleaned.
Inthe event of bottom fouling occurring in any of the circumstances outlined inthe first paragraph of this clause and charterers refuse/fail to provideunderwater cleaning and chests/rudder/propeller polishing at all ,anyredelivery of the vessel in her fouled state would be a breach of contract by charterers entitling owners to carry out underwater cleaning andc hests/rudder/propeller polishing themselves in reasonable time and place. Allthe cost and time loss for this clean should be on Charterers’ account.
In the event that such underwater cleaning and chests/rudder/propeller polishingby Owners themselves is not possible/practicable after redelivery by charterersbefore delivery of the vessel into her new fixture, Charterers, being in breachof contract in redelivering the vesselin her fouled state, are to be responsible for any performance claims which thenew charterers may make against owners under the new fixture until owners areable to carry out the underwater cleaning and chests/rudder/propellerpolishing.
在钦州还船后，船东注意到租家仍然有印尼到国内的煤炭货载，为了安排该轮到舟山修船，于是恳求租家接受该轮去执行接下来的货载航。原本该租家计划派他们自己的船舶去执行，但应船东要求，接受了Best Trader去执行印尼Bontang装煤炭的货载，租家最终安排到太仓卸。
但在签订这份航次期租合同前，7月11日上午租家询问过船东该轮的清底情况及航速油耗，船东确认刮底可以的，清底公司是他们所认可的，船舶的速度油耗绝对好，没有问题。在租家查询后，对船舶速度有疑问时，可能是污底原因时，船东声称是用内部经济航速开，船东完全没有说清底不干净。
租家在善意接受船东的解释之后，于7月11日下午双方签订合同。其中合同相关的主要条款如下：
SPEED:
ABT 13 KT(B)/ ABT 11.5KT(L) AT ABT 25.5MT IFO AND ABT 0.1 MT MGO;
PORT CONSUMPTION ABOUT 2.7 MT IFO;
PORT CONSUMPTION IN COLD OR IN VERY WARM WEATHER ADD 1 MT IFO PER DAY EXTRA.
SPEED/CONSUMPTIONSIN GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS I.E:
WINDS NOTEXCEEDING BEAUFORT SCALE FORCE 4, SEA CONDITION NOT EXCEEDING DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3,
/OR 1,25MTRS SEA WAVE HEIGHT WITH NO ADVERSE CURRENTS OR NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF SWELL.
1. DELY: DOP HONG KONG, ATDNSHINC
2. LAYCAN:11-12TH, JULY, 2018 LOCAL TIME
4.REDELY:DLOSP 1SP
5. BUNKER CLAUSE:
BOD IFO380ABT650MT AND LSMGO ABT 90MT
BUNKERS ONREDEL AS ON BOARD, PRICE BENDS USD460 PMT HSIFO/USD680 PMT LSMGO
6. OTHERS AS PER MV BEST TRADER 1802/LOTUS CPDD 3TH MAY 2018 WITH LOGICAL AMENDMENTS.
二、争议焦点
在抵达长江口之前，船东认为租家租金支付不足，因此拒绝确认租家所提供的保函；在租家反复督促要求确认，以免影响靠泊安排，并发了一份长电邮之后，该船东同意凭保函卸货。
该轮于7月28日抵达长江口，7月30日靠泊太仓。但是在靠泊后，船东发电邮，声称如果在7月30日北京时间11点之前安排付款，将指示船长关舱拒绝卸货。靠泊后，该轮船长按船东指示，关舱。租家为了减少损失，同意按船东要求继续支付；该轮随后于8月1日早上完货，最终于8月1日晚2300离长江口下引水还船。
因此，在本争议中，涉及到的主要焦点问题是：
1）船东是否有权利拒绝确认租家的LOI？
2）船东是否有权利以之前航次清底不干净为由，拒绝确认航速索赔并找租家反索赔所谓的清底费用？
3）船东发的威胁关舱的电邮是否合法？
4）租家的租金是否到期？
4) 船东是否有权利指示船长关舱拒绝卸货？
三、“法官”判决
在发生这些争议的时候，租家前来咨询笔者，让帮忙给意见。笔者当然不是“法官”，所说的并没有法律效力，但将尽笔者所能，给予公平的意见。在得知缘由之后，关于LOI等方面的争议时，笔者协助草拟了如下电邮发给船东。
首先，关于船东所声称的污底的问题，在签订第二份合同（CPDD11TH/JUL 2018）之前，该船东已经确认刮底可以，清底公司是他们所认可的，对船舶的航速油耗相当满意，认为跑得绝对好。在租家查询网站后，对船舶速度有疑问时，可能是之前航次污底原因造成时，船东则声称是用内部经济航速开，船东完全不认为清底不干净。参之前清底报告，船长已经签字确认，因此船东已经构成弃权或禁止翻供。
船东认为，这两个航次是连续的航次（DC-Direct continuation ）。显然不是，这是两份完全不同的合同，第一份合同签订日期为2018年5月3日，已经在钦州港还船，并结束该航次。第二份合同签订日期为2018年7月11日，交船位置为香港，而不是钦州。笔者很难理解，在两份不相关的合同，为何第一份合同下，所认为的可能的争议，可以在第二份合同中来处理。这方面的，将在后面的（2014）910 LMLN1伦敦仲裁案中继续解释说明。
关于LOI确认问题，参合同相关条款及第一份合同如下，已经非常清楚，船东已经同意在正本提单到不了的情况下，同意凭租家所提供的LOI来卸货。因此船东不接受租家的LOI，构成违约。
10. SHOULD ORIGINAL BILL(S) OF LADING NOT BE AVAILABLE AT DISCHARGE PORT UPON VESSEL'S ARRIVAL, OWNERS AND MASTER AGREE TO DISCHARGE THE ENTIRE CARGO AGAINST CHARTERERS SIGNED SINGLE LETTER OF INDEMNITY IN OWNERS P AND I CLUB WORDINGS. ALL CARGO TO BE RELEASED AGAINST ORIGINAL BS/L.
如果船东认为由于租家租金支付不足，可以不同意凭LOI卸货的话，那么该条款应该更清晰明确，比如加上如下措辞：
As long as Charterers have fulfilled their financial obligations to Owners,…
那么在这种情况下，如果租家未履行其财务上的责任，船东就可以不同意接受租家的要求，即可不同意凭LOI卸货。但是很显然，在Best Trader该轮的合同中，并没有这样的要求，租家先履行财务义务并不是船东需要同意租家凭LOI卸货要求的先决条件。
在收到前头的电邮之后，船东最终同意凭LOI卸货。于是港方安排该轮7月30日靠泊太仓，但是该船东在7月30日靠泊后，于17:54的时候发了如下电邮，认为水下清底并没做彻底，因此要求租家赔偿清底费用10,000美金及确认将放弃航速油耗索赔；要求租家支付足额租金及油款，还船扫洗舱费。如果在卸货之前做不到，将关舱拒绝卸货。之后用红体字说，如果未在北京时间7月30日11:00之前做到的话将指示船长终止卸货，并声称如果有任何损失将由租家承担。
这封电邮前后矛盾，一会说卸完货，一会说北京时间；时间节点还存在问题，在发电邮的时候17:54，北京时间11:30早已过去；有可能是想表达11:30GMT，但似乎与逻辑不符，暂且不管这些问题。
首先来看，船东所提供的索赔账单，第一份是UWHC(underwater hull cleaning)的10,000美金。
第二份账单，租金算到2018年8月2日的23:30LT，预计耗重油400吨，低硫轻油15吨，加上还船扫洗舱费4,500，因此显示租家欠船东37,712.05美元。
第二期支付7天租金的依据可能是第一份合同中如下条款，第二期7天的租金需提前支付。
3. HIRE USDxxx DAILY INCLOT, FIRST HIRE PAYABLE 15 DAYS WITH ESTI WHOLE CONSUMED BUNKER VALUE IN ADVANCE WITHIN 3 WORKING DAY AFTER DELY. DELY/REDL BSS LT, HIRE CALCULATION BSS GMT. THEN 7 DAYS HIRE PAID ADVANCED. THE FINAL HIRE SHALL BE SETTLED WITHIN 15 DAYS AFTER VSLS REDELIVERY.
租家的第二期租金账单显示如下，租金支付到8月2日的15:30GMT，支付预计油款350吨重油，该笔租金55,860.64已经支付，并且船东在其账单中已经显示确认收到。该租家支付了足额，包括了银行手续费，可见该租家还是比较专业的。在目前的行情下，还能足额支付包括银行手续费的租家已经少之又少，不能说万里挑一，至少是百里挑一的好租家了。当然这里有个需要注意的地方，如果未支付银行手续费可能造成租金支付不足，从而导致有可能被撤船的风险。Payment of Hire shall be made so as to be received by the Owners or their designated payee…在NYPE93第11条这种措辞下，当然其它期租合同也都类似，租金需以船东或其银行收到的金额为准，而不是租家自己支付的金额，租家必须严格保证，船东或其银行能收到足额的租金，否则就可被视为租金支付不足。这些在之前文章已有说明，不再重复。
在得知船东指示船长关舱不让卸货的时候，租家需要船舶提供的服务是继续卸货，但船东指示船长关舱，拒绝继续提供卸货的服务，于是租家发了如下电邮给船东，并保留索赔的权利。
船东在7月30日的17:54发了关舱通知，要求租家确认，否则将指示船长关舱拒绝卸货，并最终关舱拒绝卸货。船东的威胁电邮，没有提及留置货物，因此只能理解为按合同条款，船东行使的是withhold performance。租家在其电邮中，也明确说withhold vessel’s performance，船东对此并没有反对。因此，该争议的关键点，船东是否有权利这么做，以及租金在7月30日的17:54是否已经确实到期。接下来来看合同第11条租金支付条款的规定，如下：
在本条第2款规定的宽限期届满后的任何时间，并在租金未付情况下，出租人有权中止履行其任何和全部义务，而不影响其撤船的权利，并且对由此产生的任何后果不负责任，承租人应赔偿出租人因此而遭受的损失，而且租金仍需照付；出于出租人中止履行其义务而产生的任何额外费用，由承租人支付。
（b） 宽限期
由于承租人或其银行一方的疏忽，过失或错误而未能准时支付租金时，出租人应向承租人发出书面通知，要求其在2个净银行工作日（为协议的支付地点所承认）补交未付的租金，当承租人根据出租人通知在2天内予以补交时，应视为其准时支付租金。
如承租人在收到出租人通知的2天内未能支付租金，出租人享有本条第1款所规定的撤船权。
（c） 最后一期租金的支付
在最后一期租金和/或倒数第二期租金应付之时，船舶在驶往还船港的航程中，对出租人和承租人可能同意的为完成该航程所估计的必要时间，应支付租金。对于船上实际储存的燃油，由出租人接收，还船前预计的费用由出租人负担。该租金不足以支付实际租用的时间时，差额租金应按时每天支付。还船后有余额的，由出租人退还；不足的，由承租人支付。
该条款规定的十分清晰明确，船东必须给足2天的宽限期之后才能采取行动，比如关舱不卸货。而租金，如果不足以支付到实际的还船时间，如果船东要求，差额按天支付；油款按实际的船存燃油来计算。
租家在7月30日的时候，就燃油问题，曾经与船东协商，等派了还船检验员上船量一下有了结果，再做调整。但是船东拒绝此提议，并指示船长关舱拒绝卸货。很显然，就算船东认为所给予的通知是合法的，那么也应该按照合同给足2天的宽限期才能withhold performance；而不能在发通知之后，马上采取行动，关舱拒绝卸货，因此船东违约。
但事实上，在船东发威胁通知的时候，租金并未到期；在租金尚未到期的情况下，船东发这种威胁电邮可被视为预期违约，因此该电邮即不正规也不合法。接下来就来看看和宽限期通知（也叫反技巧性通知）有关的几个法律问题。
首先参第7版《Time Charter》Chapter 16-Hire and Withdrawal，16.92的如下规定：在反技巧性条款下，一个有效的通知不能被给予，直到租金到期的那一天的午夜，当租家有过错的时候。
The time at which notice is served
16.92 A valid notice under such an anti- technicality clause cannot be given until after midnight onthe due day, which is when the charterers become in default. This was decidedby the House of Lords in The Afovos,below. See also The Lutetian [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 140, at page 155, where Bingham, J., commented that the decision in The Afovos (he was referringto the Court of Appeal’s decision but the House of Lords took the same view)“makes evidence of banking hours and practice irrelevant to the question when notice may lawfully be given”.
因此，船东在7月30日发威胁通知电邮的时候为时过早，船东违约。
在The “Pamela”[1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.249案中，Gatehouse法官引用The “Rio Sun” 及The “Afovos”案，在第253页判决书中说到：
在我看来，一个反技术性条款在目前的形式要求，作为一个法律问题，两陈述表示，虽然没有特别的措辞已被使用。这些是（i）租金未准时支付，（ii）租家有48小时去付款或船没了的风险。单一的信息，仅通知租家撤船，是不够的。我因此同意持有不同意见的仲裁员，因为在我看来，法律规定，每一个这样的通知必须以明确和不含糊的最后通牒的形式存在。这尚不充分去确立，事实上，特定的承租人应该意识到一个秘密信息的重要性。
I bear in mind that these passages in The Afovos occurred in the different context of a notice which was defective because itwas conditional and premature. Nevertheless it seems to me that an anti-technicality clause in the present form requires, as a matter of law, twoexpress statements, although no particular wording has to be used. These are (i)that the hire has not been punctually paid, and (ii) that the charterers have 48 hours in which to pay up or risk losing the ship. The bare message "please notify charterers of withdrawal of the vessel"is not sufficient." I therefore agree with the dissenting arbitrator because in my view the law prescribes that every such notice must be in the form of a clear and unambiguous ultimatum. It is not enough to establish that, as a matter of fact, the particular charterer ought to have realised the significance of a cryptic message.
该案的情况也可以参《Time Charter》Chapter 16-Hire and Withdrawal，16.93，如下：
16.93 In The Pamela [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 249,Gatehouse, J., held that where hire was due on a Friday, a notice telexed by the owners shortly before midnight on that day was not premature; it would be “effective” only when read by the charterers and the arbitrators had found that this was not to be expected before the Monday following. But it is suggested that this decision be treated with caution pending affirmation by a higher court that it is indeed consistent with The Afovos.(See also The WesternTriumph [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 1 (C.A.), touching on, but not deciding,the question of when notice given by email is effective.)
在The “RioSun” [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.489 (C.A.)案中，Denning勋爵在第496页判决书中说到，他同意仲裁员所说，根据合同第30条所发出的通知，起草者在法律上不一定是完美的，但必须明确的是，出租人正在通知承租人，如果在48小时的宽限期内没有支付准确的租金，出租人将撤回船舶。Dennig勋爵认为在6月14日1640所发出的电传还不足够算是通知，该通知并未说明未能及时支付租金的后果，它可以被解释为是警告，如果没有及时付款，将发出撤船通知。对于承租人而言，撤船是如此严重的事情，因此出租人有义务明确无误地通知承租人其撤回船舶的意图，应该说明在48小时内租家要么支付租金，或者要么船舶被撤回。
I agree with the arbitrator (Mr. Clifford Clark) when he said in this case:
A notice under clause 30 need not be legally perfect in its draftsman ship,but it must be clear beyond doubt that the Owners are putting the Charterers onnotice that, if the correct hire is not paid within the 48 hours' grace, theywill withdraw the vessel.
Applying these considerations, the owners' telex on May 27 was not anotice sufficient to satisfy cl. 30. I think a notice must be as clear as anultimatum. It must tell the charterers: "Unless you pay the hire due within 48 hours, we will withdraw the vessel". The telex here did not doso.
If necessary I would also hold that the telex sent at 16 40 hours on June14 was not a sufficient notice. It reads:
Owners have instructed us that in case we do not receive the hire which is due today to give charterers notice as per clause 31 of the charter party for withdrawal of the vessel from their service.
This notice does not say that there has been a failure to pay in time; itis capable of being construed as a warning that if payment is not made in time a notice of withdrawal will be given. Withdrawal is so serious a matter for the charterer that it is the duty of the owner to give a clear and unambiguous notice of his intention to withdraw the ship. It should state that payment hasnot been received and give the charterer 48 hours to pay or lose the ship, seethe observations of Lord Denning M.R., in The Rio Sun, [1981] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 489; [1982] 1 W.L.R. 158. Ofcourse no special wording is required, but it is surely not too much to expectmen of commerce dealing in huge sums to make their meaning clear.
I would allow the appeal.
本案的情况，可以参《Time Charter》Chapter 16-Hire and Withdrawal，16.94，如下：根据这种反技巧性向承租人发出的通知的措辞必须清晰明确。它也必须是绝对的，它必须明确指出，承租人没有按时付款，并且出租人发出最后通知，除非在48小时内（或特定条款中规定的其他期间）支付租金，否则他们将或可能撤回其船舶。
The contents of the notice
16.94 The wording ofthe notice to the charterers under such an anti- technicality clause must beclear and unambiguous. It must also be absolute in terms. It must make it clearthat hire has not been paid punctually and that the owners are giving anultimatum that unless it is paid within 48 hours (or other period specified inthe particular clause) they will, or may, withdraw their ship: see the judgmentof Lord Denning, M.R., in The Rio Sun [1981]2 Lloyd’s Rep. 489; The Afovos,below; and The Pamela [1995] 2Lloyd’s Rep. 249, at page 253.
在The“Afovos”[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.562（C.A.）及[1983] 1Lloyd’s Rep.335 (H.L.)案中，出租人和承租人在1978年2月8日以NYPE租约格式签订了一份2年3个月或多或少，承租人有选择权的长期期租合同，并在1978年2月14日交船。
在1979年6月11日的时候，承租人指示其银行支付在6月14日到期的租金；承租人的银行在6月13日1002发电传给出租人的银行，但是由于电传有误，该电传并未传送到出租人的银行。在6月14日的1640，出租人的代理人依据合同第31条，给承租人发送了如下电传信息：
Owners have instructed us that in case we do not receive the hire which is due today to give charterers notice as per cl. 31 of the charter-party for withdrawal of the vessel from their service.
在6月15日的0959，承租人回复如下：
Guidance U.S. $53,308 remitted on 13th June by Credito Italiano . . . to [FNBC] - London. Telex sent at 10.02 hours on 13th June with value 14th Juneand coverage to same bank New York branch. Kindly ask owners to check and confirm all in order.
在2150，出租人在伦敦的代理人答复如下：
. . . We note that charterers have remitted only hire and not outstanding debit notes . . . We regret but complying with owners' instructions we will hand over case to our lawyers.
出租人的银行在6月18日的1900仍未收到租金，出租人于是撤船。在6月19日的时候，出租人支付租金的错误才被发现。出租人声称他们有权利撤船，承租人声称出租人在6月14日所发的依据合同第31条，并不是一个有效的通知；付款误入歧途的原因是出租人银行的错误，错误的电传号码出现在国际电传目录中；通过随后的电传交流，出租人让承租人误以为租金已经支付，且出租人不会依赖他们所给予的48小时通知撤回船舶，因此出租人禁止翻供。
商事法院的Lloyd法官认为出租人有权利撤船，承租人不服判决上诉。
上诉院认为一般规则是，当必须在某一天付款时，可以在当天午夜之前的任何时间付款。如果承租人已经在6月14日之前或午夜付款，他们本可以按照租船合同的规定提前半月支付分期付款，并且没有理由减少该期限，因为必须付款给一个指定银行；关于合同第31条的真实解释，在午夜之前不允许发48小时通知，即直到6月14日深夜付款的最后一刻之后才能发出通知；出租人发出的通知是有条件的通知；它只能被理解为“我们收不到付款”；而这不是一个好的通知，因为这种通知应该是清晰的，明确的和绝对的，并且只能在违约发生之后的某个时间给出；在6月14日16点40分发出的通知并非根据合同第31条给予的通知。因为此类通知只能在违反支付租金的义务后才发出，出租人无权在6月18日撤船，承租人上诉被允许。
Held, by C.A. (Lord DENNING, M.R., GRIFFITHS and KERR, L.JJ.), that (1) the general rule was that when payment had to be made on a certain day it could be made at any time up to midnight on that day;and here provided that the charterers had paid before or at midnight on June14, they would have paid the instalment semi monthly in advance as prescribed by the charter and there was no reason to cut down that period because payment had to be made to a named bank;
(2) on a true construction of cl. 31, the 48 hours notice could not be given in advance of midnight, i.e., the notice couldnot be given until after the last moment for payment which here was mid-nighton June 14:
(3) the notice given by the owners was aconditional notice; it was only to operate "in case we do not receive payment"; that was not a good notice since such notice ought to be clear,definite and absolute and given at a time after the default had occurred; the notice given at 16 40 hours on June 14 was not a notice pursuant to cl. 31because such a notice could only have been issued after breach of the obligation to pay hire and the owners were not entitled to withdraw the vesselon June 18 and the appeal would be allowed.
出租人不服判决，继续上诉到贵族院。
贵族院的Hailsham勋爵在第339页判决书中说到，合同第31条不管是语法意义还是合同所依据的政策考虑因素，撤船只能在提供了所必须48小时通知之后才能行使；而且撤船通知只能是在租金到期未收到的时候给出。
Of the two questions which must be decided,the second appears to me to be plain beyond argument. Both the grammatical meaning of cl. 31 and the policy considerations underlying the contract require that the moment of time at which the 48 hours notice must be given did not arise until after the momentof time at which, apart from the clause, the right of withdrawal would have accrued. I agree with the judgments of the Court of Appeal that both the expression "due and received", and the reference to the right as an"option", really only admit of this sense. The argument which appealed to the learned Judge that notice could be given at any time during the last day available for payment of the instalment (i.e. at any time aftermidnight on June 13/14 or alternatively at some point of time when it was unlikely that the instalment would be paid timeously) failed to make any impression on me at all. The notice can only be given "when hire is due and not received",which cannot arise before the time postulated by the answer given to the first question (whatever that answer may be), and the notice can only be given when there is (or apart from cl. 31 would be) already in existence, an"option" capable of exercise of "withdrawing the vessel from the charter party", and that option can only be exercised after the arrival of the same point of time.
Hailsham 勋爵认为上诉法院的Griffiths勋爵的两段判决特别具有说服力，如下：
The owners purported to give notice underclause 31 at 1640 hours on June 14. Assuming for the moment that the form ofthe notice was good, the charterers say it was premature because the ownerscannot give notice until the charterers are in breach of their obligation topay. The purpose of the notice, say the charterers, is first to inform the charterer that he has failed to make a payment by the due date and then to givehim a period of 48 hours' grace in which to pay. At first blush it might appear rather naive to say that the charterers need to be told that they have not paidthe owners. But this is not the case; payments of this kind are normally made by telex through a number of banks, and it may well be that through some slipup the money does not arrive in the owner's account as quickly as the chartererhas the right to expect. Once the charterer has instructed his bank to pay, he has no further direct control over the payment which is now in the bankingchain. The charterer in this case gave his bank in Italy instructions to pay onJune 11 which should have been ample time for payment to be made by June 14but, as we know, payment was not made by June 18. I therefore accept that charterers do require to be told by the owners that payment has not been received.There is little point in telling the charterer that payment has not beenreceived until the time for payment has expired; if the charterer is told thatpayment has not been received before the time for payment has expired, he maynot realise the urgency of the matter and continue to expect that the paymentwill be credited in time. On the other hand, if he is told after the time forpayment has expired, he will realise he is in breach and has only 48 hours inwhich to save himself.
以及：
Then I ask myself which result are commercial men likely to have intended?A construction that results in a simple situation expressed thus. "Youhaven't paid up when you should have done; pay in 48 hours or lose the ship," or a construction that gives this result, "I warn you that although the final time for payment has not yet arrived, I have not yet received payment, and if I do not receive payment when I should, then you will lose the ship if you don't pay me what you owe me in the extra time this notice gives you which is calculated by adding to your deadline for payment so many hours of this 48-hour notice as have not expired by the final time forpayment?" I suspect they would prefer the first construction.
Finally, if notice can be given before the charterer is in default, it does little more than add some unspecified period of less than 48 hours to thetime for payment. It does not give the charterer notice that he is in default,nor does it give him a period of grace.
Hailsham勋爵在第340页判决书中认为，本案的关键取决于所提出两个问题中的第一个问题的答案，合同第5条下的撤船的权利在合同第31条下出现了吗？在什么时候可以说承租人没有准时和定期支付租金？Hailsham 勋爵认为原则上，只有一个答案是可能的，即在最后一天的午夜，他们可以按时和准时支付租金，即6月14日。这是一般法律原则如果有义务从事特定行为的人必须在他当天全部履行职责的特定日期或之前进行。毫无疑问，随着时间的推移，承租人将能够做到这一点变得越来越不可能，这就是他经营的风险。但直到时间到来，承租人才真正违约。
In the result, I conclude that the crux ofthis case depends upon the answer given to the first of the two questions I have posed. This was: at what point of time apart from the mitigation of cl. 31would the right of withdrawal under cl. 5 of the charter have arisen? To putthe question in the terms of cl. 5: At what point of time can the charterers be said to have been "failing the punctual and regular payment of the hire"? Since the punctual payment of only one instalment is in question,for the purpose of the present appeal one need only ask the question in the simpler form "What is the latest point of time on June 14, 1979, which would have constituted punctual payment of the instalment?" To this question I believe that, in principle, only one answer is possible, namely at midnight on the last day available to them for the due and punctual payment ofthe hire, i.e. June 14. I take it to be a general principle of law notrequiring authority that where a person under an obligation to do a particularact has to do it on or before a particular date he has the whole of that day to perform his duty. No doubt as the hours pass it becomes less and less probable that he will be able to do it. That is the risk he runs. But he is not actually in default until the time arrives.
Hailsham勋爵认为问题不在于承租人不再愿意及时付款，而是在何时不再符合合同第5条“准时付款”。Hailsham 勋爵认为，这一刻必须与特定时间有关，并且不依赖于收款银行的方式，一般规则适用的是午夜。最终驳回出租人上诉。
The question is not when the charterer would cease to be likely to pay in time but when, to quote cl. 5, "punctual payment" would have failed. In my opinion this moment must relate to aparticular hour, and is not dependent on the modalities of the recipient bank.It is the hour of midnight to which the general rule applies.
Diplock勋爵认为虽然承租人未能按时支付租金，但无论多么短暂，所涉及的延误都可能违反条件条款，但不会因此转变为根本违约行为；只有根本违约行为才能适用预期违约原则。一般规则是，如在之前案中所分析的，主要义务转换为次要义务（无论是“一般次要义务”还是“预期次要义务”）只有在违反主要义务的情况下才会发生。到目前为止，双方尚未履行的主要义务仍未完整。例外情况是，一方向另一方表明他的意图不再履行合同，而不履行的结果将是剥夺另一方实质上的利益，而当事方的意图是另一方应从剩余的双方的主要义务中获得。在适用“毁约”一词的情况下，非违约方不必等到实际违约；他可以选择立即对待另一方的次要义务。预期违约的原则只是属于毁约的一种，仅适用于根本违约。如果合同的一方明确地或暗示另一方提前表明，在履行时间到达时，他将无法履行合同规定的特定主要义务，则另一方是否可以选择将该陈述视为毁约，取决于受威胁的不履行是否具有剥夺该另一方实质上全部利益的效果，而该当事方的意图是他应从当事方的主要义务中获得。如果不具有这种效果，则不存在毁约，另一方不能选择终止剩余的主要义务。不履约的威胁本身必须满足根本违约的标准。
But although failure by the charterers in punctual payment of any instalment, however brief the delay involved may be ismade a breach of condition it is not also thereby converted into a fundamental breach; and it is to fundamental breaches alone that the doctrine of anticipatory breach is applicable.
The general rule is that a primary obligationis converted into a secondary obligation (whether a "general secondary obligation" or an "anticipatory secondary obligation" in the nomenclature of the analysis used in my speech in Photo Production v. Securicor Transport Ltd.) when and only when the breach of the primary obligation actually occurs. Up until then the primary obligations of both parties which have not yet been performed remain intact. The exception is where one party has manifested to the other party his intention no longer to perform the contract and the result of the non-performance would be to deprive the other party of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties that that other party should obtain from the primary obligations of both parties remaining to be performed. In such a case, to which the term"repudiation" is applicable, the party not in default need not wait until the actual breach; he may elect to treat the secondary obligations of the other party as arising forthwith.
The doctrine of anticipatory breach is but aspecies of the genus repudiation and applies only to fundamental breach. If one party to a contract states expressly or by implication to the other party inadvance that he will not be able to perform a particular primary obligation onhis part under the contract when the time for performance arrives, the questionwhether the other party may elect to treat the statement as a repudiationdepends upon whether the threatened non-performance would have the effect ofdepriving that other party of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of the parties that he should obtain from the primary obligations ofthe parties under the contract then remaining unperformed. If it would not havethat effect there is no repudiation, and the other party cannot elect to put anend to such primary obligations remaining to be performed. The non-performance threatened must itself satisfy the criteria of a fundamental breach.
Diplock勋爵认为同样地，如果合同当事方无论是由于未采取及时采取行动还是由于任何其他违约行为而使其无权履行特定的主要义务，另一方有权选择将其视为毁约，但取决于由此产生的不履行是否构成根本违约。显然，在本案的情况下，延迟支付半个月的租金并不会导致根本违约。出租人上诉被驳回。
Similarly where a party to a contract,whether by failure to take timeous action or by any other default, has put itout of his power to perform a particular primary obligation, the right of theother party to elect to treat this as a repudiation of the contract by conduct depends upon whether the resulting non-performance would amount to a fundamental breach. Clearly, in the instant case delay in payment of one semi-monthly instalment of hire would not.
结合这些权威先例，在Best Trader轮争议中，就算是在7月30日1754的时候租金已经到期，事实上仍未到期，租家并没有毁约的行为，不构成根本违约和预期违约。船东在这种情况下，就算所给予的通知是有效的，事实上该通知书无效，合同条款所赋予船东的权利是，在租金到期的那一天，才可以发通知。同时，就算是有权利发，也应该严格依据合同条款，给予2天的宽限期通知，才能采取关舱行动。在2天的宽限期届满之前，采取任何中止服务的行为都将构成船东违约。除非是，在租金确实到期之后，按合同第23条，行使货物留置权；如果是行使货物留置权，则无需给予所谓的2天的宽限期通知。但在本争议中，船东所采取的是中止卸货服务，并没有说是留置货物，因此，船东关舱构成违约。
现在剩下最后一个问题，船东是否有权利以之前航次清底不干净为由，拒绝确认航速索赔并找租家反索赔所谓的清底费用。
该轮在长江口还船后，船东安排到舟山修船，期间发了如下电邮，并提供了相关照片，声称租家未安排水下清底，因此拒绝该航次的航速油耗索赔。
但如前文所解释的，5月3日租约期下的合同，下家已经安排了水下检验并清底，而且船长也在报告上签字盖章。船东自己对清底结果表示满意，并且认可清底公司。现在反过来说租家未安排水下清底，如此颠倒黑白；也行可能是想表达的是没有清理干净，但邮件发出来的却是完全相反的意思。
现在回国头来看污底条款，其中节选如下：
In the event of Charterers ordering the vessel to lay-up or toport(s) where the vessel’s stay in port(s) or berth(s) or anchorage(s) orcombined is extended for 20 days or more in a Tropical Zone or 25 days or morein any other area and bottom fouling occurs, Charterers to provide immediate underwater cleaning andchests/rudder/propeller polishing at their time and expense and to owners’ satisfaction.
这里仅仅是要求租家安排水下清底并达到船东满意。船长作为船东方的雇员，代表船东行事，在查看录像后没有异议，据现场人员说，船长满意，并在报告上签字盖章确认。船东事后也表达了满意，认可该清底公司。因此在5月3日租约期的合同下，租家的责任已经履行。如果船东坚持认为清理不干净，那么该污底条款应该继续修改，比如增加“should be fully cleaned”等，修改如下：
Charterers to provide immediate underwater cleaning and chests/rudder/propeller polishing at their time and expense , which should be fully cleaned and to owners’ satisfaction. If found not fully cleaned, Owners are entitled to claim damages.
但是很显然，该条款并没有类似措辞；鉴于船长已经签字盖章确认，没有抗议；船东自己也认可，构成了禁反言，船东已经放弃了再找租家索赔的权利。因此，在5月3日租约期下，租家已经安排了水下清底达到船东满意，租家污底责任已经解除。
船东很自信地提供了很多照片，如下，声称租家违约，未安排水下清底。在看到此照片后，租家立即答复，认为船东搞混了，在7月11日的租约下，并没有在港超时等原因造成的污染问题，相反船东违约。违反合同第6条规定，未能维持船级并使船体，船机和设备在租期内处于充分有效状态。船东安排修船，坞检到期；加上是20年的老龄船，反推船壳船底有问题属于正常人的思维。
Safe receipt Owners’ last with thanks, but assume the Owners make upside and down. As Charterers clarified in their earlier message, There is no any prolong stay under this charterparty (cpdd 11th/Jul 2018), Therefore Charterers have no any responsibility for alleged bottom fouling.
Meanwhile, Charterers hereby reserve their all rights to claim damage as the Owners failure to maintain the vessel and keep her in a thoroughly efficient state in hull, machinery and equipment for and during the service,Owners put them in breach clause 6 of this charterparty, which provided:
The Owners shall provide and pay for the insurance of the Vessel, except as other wise provided, and for all provisions, cabin,deck,engine-room and other necessary stores, including boiler water and lubricating oil; shall pay for wages, consular shipping and discharging fee so the crew and charges for port services pertaining to the crew; shall maintain the Vessel's class and keep her in a thoroughly efficient stateinhull, machinery and equipment for and during the service, and have a fullcomplement of officers and crew.
Charterers’ all rights are hereby fullyreserved.
关于海生物造成的污底问题，如果是新长的海生物，应该如下图所示。船东所提供的那种不是新长的海生物（海蛎子），是锈块，是经过长时间才会导致的。这是最基本的常识问题，很难理解，船东为何会提供对自己不利的证据，很可能没有这方面的法律意识。清底公司没有义务，也没有办法去帮忙船东铲除锈块。
最后来看看，涉及到两个连续航次的伦敦仲裁判例，London Arbitration（2014）910 LMLN 1。
在该案中，以NYPE46格式，签订两个TCT连续航次，合约日期24/Nov及18/Jan，其中第二个航次为DC(Directcontinuation)。
第一个航次11月24日在上海交船后，租家安排到印度尼西亚的Morowali装镍矿回连云港。船于12月6日抵达装港锚地，一直装到1月24日完货开航，在港前后大约48天时间，远超合同规定；船舶于2月2日抵达卸港连云港。
船东在1月10日发邮件通知租家说在港超时，按照合同第128条，要求租家承担污底的责任。
Because of the prolonged stay at the anchorage for loading, in an area with high sea watertemperatures which undoubtedly favouring the hull fouling, Owners according theC/Party clause 128 reserve their rights to conduct an underwater inspection andif its found necessary and under-water cleaning to be carried out at Chrts time and expenses.
Owners’ intention is to conduct the under-water inspection and hull cleaning if it necessary when and where practical which will, most likely, be at the discharge port but in case same cannot be arranged concurrently with discharging, Owns reserve their rights to conduct same at another convenient port and cost/timeto be for charts account.
It goes without saying that for the laden voyage from Morowali to disport in China Owners will not be liable for any underperformance caused due to vessel’s hull being fouled due to prolonged stay for loading at Morowali roads for loading.
租家在2月6日安排水下检验，根据照片发现确实有污底；但由于连云港条件受限，水下能见度不良，租家最终没有安排清底。在得知此情况后，船东在2月14日发如下电邮给租家。
According to the attached report of underwater inspection arranged by charterers, it appears that ship’s hull bottom, propeller and rudder is fouled to the extent of atleast 5% ...
Charterers are fully aware that the fouling of ship’s hull has been caused by prolonged stay at anchorage of Morowali for more of 35 days for which charterers are fully responsible.
The fouled ship’s hull is the only factor that has affected and contributed to ship’s overconsumption and speed underperformance, and for which we repeat one more that charterers are fully responsible.
We therefore do not accept any hire deduction due to over consumption and speed alleged underperformance.
船东自己本身也无法安排水下检验及清底，因此在连云港卸完货后，还船；然后按DC合同交船，直接去了Kolaka继续装镍矿。船舶于3月1日装完货离开Kolaka港，3月11日再次抵达卸港连云港。租家于3月25日还船给船东。还船后，船东安排进干坞修船；在修船期间修理了装卸工损坏。
船东于是找租家索赔4,500美元的ILOHC，2,800美元的装卸工损坏。租家不认，找船东反索赔第一份租约下的航速索赔，16.5小时约5,492美元，燃油多耗14,828.10美元；DC合同下的航速索赔，时间9.84小时约2,255美元，以及多耗的燃油重油约9,3332.94美元及少量轻油700美元。
合同的相关条款如下：
“ABT 13.50 KN L/13.75KN B ON ABT 29.50L/28.50B MT IFO 380 CST,RMG 380 GENS-SEA 2.5MT IFO/PORT 3.0MTIFO IDLE-4.5MT IFO GEAR WORKING
THE ABV SPD/CONSIS BSS GOOD WEATHER, NO ADVERSECURRENT, NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF SWELLS ANDNOT EXCEEDING BEAUFORT SCALE FORCE4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3
… ALL DTLS ABT.”
Clause 128(1) provided:
“Owners not to beresponsible if the vessel under the currency of this charter party stays atport or anchorage or any other placefor more than 28 days and therefore vessel’s speed, due to bottom fouling whichmay have formed to the ship’s hullas a direct result of such prolonged stay, is reduced and/or consumption increased. In case of need for underwater cleaning same to be for Charterer’s account in terms of time and expenses.”
主要争议出现在航速索赔，在第一租约下，租家按WNI气导报告（重载航次）扣了船东16.5小时的时间损失及多耗的燃油，约21,000美金。在第二个租约下，租家按AWT气导报告（重载航次）9.84小时的时间损失及多耗的燃油，约11,590美金。
仲裁庭认为，船舶停留在Morowali的锚地，装载货物的时间约为48天，远超过第128（1）条规定的28天期限。Morowali位于热带水域1°52'纬度的地方，长时间停留可能导致海洋生长污染船体。2月6日承租人在连云港安排的水下检查证实了这种污染在某种程度上得到了证实，但鉴于其进行的不利条件，该检查的准确性受到质疑。通过在第二次租船合同之后立即进行干船坞期间拍摄的船体拍摄的照片，以及关于干船坞期间所做工作的绘画报告，进一步证实了这一点。因此，仲裁庭认定，在Morowali港船舶的长期停留期间确实发生了底部污染，并且该污染影响了连续起航到连云港的速度和燃油消耗。在上述结论中，法庭得到了强化，在从上海到Morowali的空载航次上，船舶按照合同的速度和消耗保证执行，表明船舶的船体当时没有受到海生物污染的影响。这些调查结果考虑了租船合同第128（1）条的规定，由于出租人未对到连云港的重载航程进行速度和油耗保证，出租人对此不承担任何责任。承租人第一个航次的航速油耗索赔不成立。
The vessel had remained at the anchorage at Morowali for the loading of the cargo for a period of some 48 days, well in excess of the 28-day period in clause 128(1). Morowali was situated at a latitude of 1°52’S, in tropical waters, where a prolonged stay was likely to lead to marine growth fouling the vessel’s hull. That fouling took place to some extent was confirmed by theunderwater inspection that the charterers arranged at Lianyungang on 6 February, although the accuracy of that inspection was subject to question,given the adverse conditions in which it had been conducted. It was further confirmed by photographs of the vessel’s hull taken during her dry-docking immediately after her redelivery from the second charterparty, and by apainting report covering the work done during the dry-docking.
Accordingly, the tribunal found that bottom fouling did occur during the protracted stay of the vessel at Morowali and thatthat fouling affected both her speed and bunker consumption on the laden voyageto Lianyungang. The tribunal was fortified in that conclusion by the fact that,on the ballast leg from Shanghai to Morowali, the vessel performed inaccordance with her speed and consumption warranties, indicating that her hullwas unaffected by fouling at that time.
Those findings brought into play the terms ofclause 128(1) of the charterparty, by virtue of which the owners had no responsibility for the vessel’s failure to make her speed and consumption warranties on the laden voyage to Lianyungang. The charterers’ underperformance claim in respect of the first voyage accordingly failed.
对于第二个航次（DC）的航速油耗索赔，仲裁庭认为，AWT的气导报告正确采用了The Didymi [1988] 2 Lloyd's Rep108和The Gas Enterprise [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 352案中所确立的基本原则。在考虑了about后，重油多耗的由24.77吨减少到8.106吨。
出租人没有质疑AWT报告中数字的准确性，但仍然认为承租人扣除是不正当的。他们指出，承租人在第二个租船合同下将船舶直接续租，因此在长期停留在Morowali之后不允许进行船舶污底清理。出租人主张承租人的行为构成了弃权，因此不能索赔第二个航次的航速油耗索赔。
仲裁庭拒绝了出租人的主张。在签订第二个租船确认书时，1月18日，出租人意识到船舶在Morowali长期停留期间发生船体结垢的可能性，并且实际上在1月10日已经发电邮给承租人以示抗议。然而，出租人他们在第二个租船合同下按照与第一个相同的条款签订了合同，包括相同的速度和性能保证，交船条款为：“IN D/C [direct continuation] UPONDLOSP LAST DISPORT UNDER PRESENT C/P any time day or night”。在这种情况下，出租人承担了第二个租船合同规定的风险，即由于第一个租船合同下发生的船体污损，船舶可能无法达到合同速度和履行性能的保证。
情况可能也是如此，在如此签订的情况下，出租人打算在空载航次在回到印度尼西亚之前安排船壳清理。这可能需要挂靠一个方便的中间港口，并需要承担一定成本和费用，但这样可以根据合同第128（1）条和出租人1月10日的邮件找承租人追偿回来。无论如何，无论他们的意图是什么，出租人在船舶抵达Kolaka之前都没有安排清理船壳。
The owners’ submission would be rejected. At the time the second fixture was concluded, on 18 January, the owners were aware of the likelihood of hull fouling occurring during the vessel’s prolonged stay at Morowali and had, indeed, already written to the charterers in protest (on 10January). Yet they fixed the vessel under the second charterparty on identical terms to the first, including the same speed and performance warranties, with delivery terms reading: “IN D/C [direct continuation] UPON DLOSP LAST DISPORTUNDER PRESENT C/P any time day or night”. In those circumstances, the owners took the risk under the second charterparty that the vessel might not be able to make her speed and performance warranties by reason of the hull fouling that had occurred under the first charterparty.
It might also be the case that, in so fixing, the owners had intended to clean the hull on the ballast voyage back to Indonesia. That might have entailed the cost and expense of putting in to a convenient intermediate port, but such would have been recoverable from the charterers pursuant to clause 128(1) and the owners’ message of 10 January. In any event, whatever their intention might have been,the owners did not arrange for the hull to be cleaned before the vessel arrived at Kolaka.
根据该分析，仲裁庭认为出租人必须遵守他们所提供的保证，并对任何已证明违反这些保证的行为作出赔偿。在这方面，虽然租船合同中明确规定了IFO消耗的保证，但对MDO的消耗没有明确的保证，因此承租人多耗的MDO的700美元的索赔主张不成立。
On that analysis, the owners had to stand by the warranties that they had given and respond in damages for any proven breach of them. In that regard, whilst it was clear that the charterparties contained a warranty regarding the consumption of IFO, there was no clear warranty regarding the consumption of MDO so that the claim for a deduction of US$700 for over-consumption of MDO had to fail.
其它小争议和本文无关，因此不再做介绍。最后仲裁庭判出租人无需为第一个合同下的航速索赔负责，根据合同第128条清楚规定如果在港超过28天，证据也显示产生了污底，那么出租人无需为船舶速度降低或油耗增多负责。但出租人得负责第二个DC合同下的航速索赔；因为在第二个DC合同下，双方都没有提及前一个航次污底该由谁负责，因此在该DC合同下，出租人仍然需保证船舶航速油耗能达到合同要求，出租人必须遵守他们所提供的保证，并对认为已证明违反这些保证的行为作出赔偿。
因此，最后一个问题已经有答案，船东不能因为第一份合同下污底的原因，而声称对第二份合同下航速油耗不保证，强迫租家放弃航速油耗索赔。
总结：
综合以上所给出的理由，笔者认为，Best Trader的船东在签约日期为5月3日的租船合同下，对于下家所安排的水下清底没有提出异议，船长在清底报告上签字盖章确认；并且事后船东认为清底干净，认可清底公司；在清底效果上，完全没有保留，相反声称速度不快的原因是在跑内部的经济航速。船东的行为构成了弃权及禁止翻供，因此无权在第二份合同（签约日期为7月11日）下，狡辩称租家未安排水下清底或者未清理干净。租家提供气导报告后，如果没有提出相反意见，那么租家可以凭借气导报告，找船东索赔航速油耗损失。
其次，船东在7月30日1754所发的威胁电邮，租金尚未到期，船东发此电邮为时过早；并在在发送电邮后不久就指示船长关舱拒绝卸货，船东违约。船东在租金为到期就发非法电邮，在未依据合同要求，给足2个工作天的情况下，私自指示船长关舱终止服务，构成违约，租家可以停租及索赔相关损失。
对于船东所声称的是DC航次，事实上并不是，签约日期为5月3日的第一个合同已经在钦州下引水后还船结束；签约日期为7月11日的第二个合同，交船点为香港，和第一个合同完全没有关系。依据London Arbitration（2014）910 LMLN 1该仲裁判例，船东在第二份租约下，仍然需保证船舶的速度油耗能达到合同要求，船东必须得遵守他们在租约中所提供的保证，并对认为已经证明违反这些保证的行为作出赔偿。因此船东得为船舶的履约表现不佳承担赔偿责任。
同时，船东违反合同的保证条款，违反合同第6条规定，未能维持船级并使船体，船机和设备在租期内处于充分有效状态。基于以上理由，笔者认为，船东关舱构成违约，因此需要承担所有责任。
签订合约的目的是为了履行，而不是为了违约。
1、参考资料《Time Charter》
修改完成于2018年8月10日
（后记，曾经和好友开玩笑说，最便宜的就是书，哪怕从书中学到一点东西，挣回1吨油钱，450美金，都可以买几十套书。但比较遗憾的是，还有人认为买书浪费。笔者建议，有机会应该每个月或每季度买一本海商法书籍学一学。当别人都在学习，而自己在原地踏步的时候，如本文中的船东，连一个基本的通知都发不对，基本的法律意识都没有；或者说依然按照自己的做法来野蛮行事，那必然要付出代价。
以此文谨记于8月10日退出国内最大租船操作散货群~，将努力学习一段，努力为支持者，公司提供更多有用的东西~不要离开，我会回来~）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
