2017-12-11
1394 
【摘要】程租合同下，除了C.Q.D.条款外，通常对装卸率会做明确的规定，对应地如果租家违反了，得支付滞期费。如果租家未能按合约规定的时间内完成装卸货，从而导致了船东额外的损失，比如错过潮水，或者因季节载重线等问题导致了少装货，船东是否可以找租家索赔损失呢？本文通过The “Sagatind”案来说一说这一问题。
【关键词】保证、装率、滞期费、索赔
近期与一律师好友讨论关于船东私自撤船跑路是否违约的问题，合同中规定如果在船舶未能在Laycan之内抵达装港，那么laytime在开始装货的时候才开始起算。船舶最终未能在Laycan之内抵达装港，租家并没有取消合同。但是租家一时也并没有备齐足够的货物，船东在等了一段时间后，以没有货物为由，私自撤船去执行别的航次。
这里涉及到几个法律问题，一、船东是否可以以没货为由而单方面撤船取消合同；二、等货的时间是否足够长久足以使租约受阻；三、租家是否可以索赔船东撤船所造成的损失。
在程租合同下，除了C.Q.D.条款外，通常对装卸率会做明确的规定，这里有固定时间的，比如总共装货时间为5天；也有按装率来约定的，比如每天10,000吨。而如果租家不能在约定的允许可用的时间内完成装卸货作业的话，那么就得支付滞期费。
如前所说的，船舶未能在Laycan内抵达并递交有效的NOR，laytime在开始装货的时候才起算，这种条款和C.Q.D.类似，装货前的滞留通通都成了船东自己的风险，因此可以说是对船东非常不利的条款。这里还涉及一主要问题，没有货到底是租家说的，还是船东自己认为的。如果是租家自己说没有货，那么将如之前文章《滞期费的合理性问题》所说的案例类似，租家声明没有货将构成租约受阻，船东有权利撤回船舶去执行别的替代航次，还可以进一步找租家索赔损失，如果有的话。但是如果是船东自己单方面，主观认为等泊时间过长，租家没有货而撤船，将直接导致船东违约，租家可以反过来找船东索赔损失。在这等泊的时间内，船东能做的只能是找租家索赔滞期费，但合同已经规定，laytime在开始装货的时候才开始起算，这直接导致等泊期间船东无滞期费收入，船东自己承担此等泊风险。
接下来来了解一下，这个滞期费的含义。
在《Black’s LawDictionary》法律大词典中关于“Demurrage”一词的解释如下：在海事法中，那些在运输合同中确定的或允许的，对于超过合同许可的用于装卸货或航行的时间所造成的滞留给予船东报酬的款项即为滞期费。
In maritime law, the sum which is fixed by the contract of carriage, or which is allowed, as remuneration to the owner of a ship for the detention of his vessel beyond the number of days allowed by the charter-party for loading and unloading or for sailing.
在《LaytimeDefinitions for Charter Parties 2013》中关于“Demurrage”一词的解释如下：
Demurrage shall mean an agreed amount payable to the Owner in respect of delay to the vessel beyond the laytime for which the Owner is not responsible. Demurrage shall not be subject to laytime exceptions unless specifically stated in the CharterParty.
滞期费是指在船东不负责的时间以外支付给船东的约定金额，除非在租船合同中明确规定，否则滞期费不应受到装卸时间除外条款的限制。
在Union ofIndiav Compania Naviera Aeolus SA(The Spalmatori)案中，Guest勋爵说到：装卸货时间是当事人为装货或卸货所规定的日期，如果超过，则租船人违反；滞期费是如果装卸货造成了滞留的约定赔偿金。
Lay days are the days which parties have stipulated for the loading or discharge of the cargo, and if they are exceeded the charterers are in breach; demurrage is the agreed damages to be paid for delay if the ship is delayed in loading or discharging beyond the agreed period.
在Dias Compania Naviera SA v Louis Dreyfus Corporation案中,Diplock 勋爵说到：如果装卸货在承租人完成卸货作业之前终止，则他违约。违规行为是持续的，它一直持续到卸货完成，船舶再次可供船东用于其他航次任务。
If laytime ends before the charterer has completed the discharging operation he breaks his contract. The breach is a continuing one; it goes on until discharge is completed and the ship is once more available to the shipowner to use for other voyages.
在The “OrientalEnvoy”案中，Parker法官说到：毫无疑问，滞期费可能被视为损害赔偿的性质，而不是等同于这种损害赔偿。这是非常不同的，如果承租人未能在规定的卸货时间内完成卸货，则承租人需按合同支付一定数额的款项，其开始和计算本身也是一个协议。
In my view,however, while demurrage can no doubt be regarded as being in the nature of damages, for detention, it is not to be equated with such damages. It is very different. It is a simple contractual obligation by the charterer to pay acertain sum if he fails to complete discharge within the stipulated laytime,the commencement and calculation of which is itself a matter of agreement.
以上这些可以参《Laytimeand Demurrage》Chapter1-General principles 和Chapter 6-Demurrage的相关章节。
对船东而言，时间就是金钱，因此如果租家造成了滞留，租家就得按合约支付滞期费。如Devlin法官在 Compania De Navigacion Zita S.A. vLouis Drefus & Cie案中所说:船东的愿望是实现船舶的快速运转，时间对他来说就是金钱。约定固定的装卸时间，滞期费是对装货滞留的惩罚，而速遣费是对迅速作业的奖励。
The shipowner's desire is to achieve a quick turn-round; time is money for him. The object of fixing lay days and providing for demurrage and dispatch money is to penalize dilatoriness in loading and to reward promptitude. When a number of lay days is specified, it is no doubt calculated upon some estimate of the period within which the charterers,working diligently, should be able to load a known quantity of cargo. But it is common enough to find that, although a full and complete cargo is required, the quantity to be loaded cannot be known until it is seen how the stowage is working out; in the present case the weight of cargo may vary by at least as much as 10 per cent. According to stowage factors which are in the discretion of the master.
在了解滞期费的基础上，那么如果租家违反了装卸率要求，船东除了可以按合约可以找租家收取滞期费之外，是否还可以找租家索赔额外的损失？比如错过了合适的潮水或者因为冬夏季载重线的变化导致的少装货而产生的亏舱费？接下来就来看看The “Sagatind”案。
一、基本案情
Aktieselskabet Reidar(以下简称“船东”)在1923年5月26日将有4个舱的蒸汽船Sagatind(以下简称 “该轮”)租给Arcos, Ltd(以下简称“租家”)，从Mesane装满载的木材到英国或法国北部，荷兰或比利时卸，租家有选择权；签发提单的时候或在Lodingen需给予指示。
由于滞留完成该轮当时的预定航次，在合同签订的时候该轮还没有准备就绪前往Mesane港。在经过一些讨论之后，在1923年9月19日，当事人双方最终同意将装港改为Archangel，其余别的合同条款为此不变。该轮于10月3日抵达Archangel，装卸时间于4日开始起算。
如果该轮被要求到英国的某个港口卸货，依据1906年的商船法案，延迟抵达将造成尴尬境地。除非该轮可以在10月31日或之前抵达，否则船长或船东如果装载的甲板货物超过了上述规定，依据该法案第10条将被处以罚款。如果该论可以满载，并且可能在10月20日或之前完货开航，以便于10月30日或之前到达英国的一个港口，她可以载运850份标准木材。该轮10月8日开始装货，装货滞留导致在10月20日之前无法完货开航，最终该轮到10月23日的时候总共装了544份标准的木材。
船东事后找租家索赔少装的306份的亏舱费，法官Greer判租家得支付此亏舱费。租家不服，上诉。
合同的相关条款如下：
The steamer should proceed to Mesane after completing her then intended voyage, and there load a full and complete cargo of timber for a port in the United Kingdom or North France,Holland or Belgium, at charterers' option, orders to be given on signing bills of lading or at Lodingen. Time was not to count before July 15.
Steamship to be reckoned as a four-hatch steamship, and the cargo to be loaded at the rate of 80 standards per weather working day for deals and battens and 60 standards for other goods. Should the steamer be detained beyond the time stipulated for loading, demurrage to be paid at £25 per day and pro rata for any part there of.
二、争议的焦点问题
租家的代表律师认为，如果法官判决是对的，那么租家将已经履行了提供全部货物的责任义务并且船东得到了比租家已经支付更多的5天的滞期费。于是主张（1）法官的判决是错误的，虽然船舶处于滞期状态，但是在没有违反的情况下将租船人视为了违约；（2）即使船舶出现滞期，租船人违反合同，租船合同方仍然要支付赔偿金，法官无权裁定他有更大的款项。
船东的代表律师认为，租船人违反了提供全面完整货物的义务。没有证据表明他们会提供这些货物，但仅仅是船长的行为。相反，有证据表明货物短缺，而且每一份提单都表明，在没有满足他所要求的全部货物的情况下，船长明确表示保留了收取亏舱费的权利。如果在合同期限内没有提供货物，但最终提供了货物，装满货物的船东只受到船舶滞留所造成的损害，这有协议规定需要支付的总额。但是，本案不仅仅是滞留而且还包括少装货，船舶滞留开航而没有满载货物，因此船东有双重索赔：（1）滞期费；（2）亏舱费。
三、上诉法院判决
Banks勋爵在作出判决时说：这个上诉提出了一个相当普遍且重要的问题，而且似乎有一些司法意见上的差异。本案最初是船东向违反租船合同的租船人提起诉讼。据称，这起违规行为是未能装载全部的货物而引起的。Greer法官作出了对原告船东有利的判决。Greer法官的判决是基于这样的观点，必须根据租船合同的规定确定构成完整和全部的货物，租船合同的承运费率。Banks勋爵认为由于他后来提到的理由，他认为原告的要求（如果有的话）必须以违反装货率的规定为依据。这样提出的这个案子提出了两个重要的问题：考虑到租船合同的条款，是否存在承租人的违约情况；如果有的话，是否该违约通过支付按规定的费率计算滞期费用得以满足。
Banks勋爵认为如果租船人在收到船长的准备就绪通知后立即开始装货，并按约定的速率来装的话，则全部的850份标准木材将被装上，并且该船有足够的航行时间让她在10月30日之前到达英国的一个港口。但实际上发生的事情是，货物没有按约定的速度装货，而在10月23日，她只装了544份。到那时船舶不可能在10月30日之前抵达英国的一个港口，船长预计或被告知将到英国港口卸货，因此拒绝接受更多的货物。在甲板上的记录如下：“星期二23日，从上午8时装船到4点30，装满货物，甲板高度与栏杆齐平”，清楚表明船长已经考虑到限制商船法第10条的规定。船长在签署提单时给他的命令是他要去Lodingen；但当他到达那里时，他被命令去了曼彻斯特港。
Banks勋爵认为事实上有一个困难，就是说这艘船没有装满全面完整的货物。在他看来，判断她是否满载的时间节点是她开航的时间。当时，假设她的目的地是英国的一个港口，她已经满载货物。不管这是否是对事实的正确看法，实际上是不重要的，因为假设装载全部完整货物的义务和将货物（即货物由其组成的货物）装载到规定的费率是独立和明确的义务，他认为它们是，原告仍然有权说，但是如果没有达到商定的装率，他们将会接收850份标准木材，而不是实际收到的544份。Banks勋爵认为不管怎么说，他已经提到了同样的两个问题，这两个问题都是重要的，两者都不能找到对本法院具有约束力的任何直接的权力，尽管在第一个问题上司法意见的两个问题并不一致。
I see a difficulty upon the facts in saying that the vessel did not load a full and complete cargo, as it appears to me that the time for ascertaining whether she had or had not a full cargo is the time when she sailed. At that time,assuming her destination to be a port in the
对于第一个问题的答案取决于一个合约的真实观点是什么，因为这个合约方有固定数量的装卸日，并且有关滞期费率的规定，但没有规定任何固定数量的滞期天数。Cleasby男爵关于他在Lockhart v. Falk案中所表达的滞期费的观点，经常被提到，可很好地再次被引用。他说：毫无疑问，“滞期费”一词恰当地表明，对那些超出不管是在文书中列明或解释所允许的滞留的额外款项（一般为每天）；但是它也具有普遍的或者更普遍的对不当延迟的补偿的意义，并且从包含所述条款的每个租约当事人的整体来看，我们必须汇总什么是合适的含义来分配给它。
The word "demurrage" no doubt properly signifies the agreed additional payment (generally per day) for an allowed detention beyond a period either specified in or to be collected from the instrument; but it has also a popular or more general meaning of compensation for undue detention, and from the whole of each charter-party containing the clause in question we must collect what is the proper meaning to be assigned to it.
Banks勋爵认为值得注意的是，知识渊博的法官将“allowed detention”和“undue detention”区分开来。如Francesco v. Massey案规定了滞留时间（在这种情况下为十天）的特定天数，正如Trayner勋爵在Lilly v. Stevenson案中所讨论得多的判决一样，认为商人规定的天数在滞期期间只是装卸时间，但是需要支付的装卸时间也是有根据的。但在本案的情况下，Banks勋爵认为没有必要就这一点发表任何意见。
It will be noted that the learned Judge draws the distinction between the "allowed detention," and the "undue detention." It may well be that wherea charter-party, as in Francesco v. Massey, L.R. 8 Ex. 101, provides for agiven number of days (in that case ten days) on demurrage, as much of themuch-discussed judgment of Lord Trayner in Lilly v. Stevenson, 22 R. 278, as holds that days stipulated for by the merchant on demurrage are just lay days,but lay days that have to be paid for, is well founded. In the present case it is not necessary to express any opinion upon that particular point.
Banks勋爵认为在这里处理的是Cleasby男爵所说的“undue detention”。 在处理这个问题时，有必要记住合同方所包含的合同当事人的一些显著特征。公认的是，即使装和卸或装或卸的日期是固定的，时间也不是合同的实质。船东没有权利，只是因为装卸时间已经用尽，在合同仍未完成的时候便认为合同已到尽头并撤回他的船。正因为如此，Banks勋爵认为有关滞期费率的规定经常被插入合约中，以便如果船舶为了使承租人履行其装载或卸载义务而必须呆在那，双方可能知道为此滞留所需支付的款项。
What we arehere dealing with is what Baron Cleasby refers to as "unduedetention." In dealing with this question it is necessary to bear in mindone of the outstanding features of the contract of parties as contained in acharter-party. It is well established that even where the number of lay days for loading and dischargingor for loading or discharging, is fixed, time is not of the essence of the contract. The shipowner is not entitled, merely because the lay days have expired, and the contract is not completed, to treat the contract as at an end and to withdraw his ship. It is for this reason, I think, that thestipulation for a demurrage rate is so often inserted in the contract in orderthat, if the vessel has to remain in order to enable the charterer to completehis obligation, either of loading or discharging, the parties may know what sum will have to be paid for the detention.
Roche法官在Proctor，Garratt，Marston，Ltd.v.Oakwin Steamship Co.案中提到了Ethel Radcliffe Steamship Co. v.Barnett，Ltd.案。Banks勋爵认为本法院留下了以后的决定权，即船东是否有责任将其船舶停放在装卸港或停靠港（视情况而定），承租人依租约在港口承担履行义务，依赖于合同的隐含条款，或者由于船东在船舶入港前必须保留一段合理的时间，如果承租人不履行义务的行为构成了毁约。
Banks勋爵认为没有足够的理由来解释本案中租船合同规定的滞期费用，合理延长合理时间或任何其他时间，或作为合同的隐含条款，船舶应保持一段时间。他宁愿留下这样的必要性，即时间不是合同的实质，除非在某些特殊情况下，船东不能断言合同已被毁约，除非船舶确实呆了足够长的时间来使这个问题得到检验。
I see nosufficient reason for construing the provision for demurrage as contained inthe charter-party in the present case by a contractual extension of the laydays either for a reasonable time or for any other time, or as an implied termof the contract that the vessel shall remain for any time. I prefer to rest the necessityfor remaining upon the ground that, time not being of the essence of the contract, the shipowner will not, except under some exceptional circumstances,be in a position to assert that the contract has been repudiated unless the vessel does remain for a sufficient time to enable that question to be tested.
Banks勋爵认为如果这是正确的观点，则认为如果租船方在本租船合同条款下，并且承租人在约定的装卸时间内未能装载或卸载（视情况而定），或按照规定的速度，他确实违反了合同。就这点而言，Bank勋爵认为还未有任何权威，因此他比较满意他所说。他不确定Trayner勋爵用来表达相反观点的语言，并没有超出真正意图的程度。他认为，与该语言相一致的是，博学法官需铭记的是，即使在有滞期费用的固定日期到期之后，仍有保留船舶的义务。
If this is the correct view, it follows that where a charter-party, is in the terms of thepresent charter-party, and the charterer fails to load or to discharge, as thecase may be, within the agreed lay days, or at the stipulated rate, he doescommit a breach of contract. So far as there is any authority on the point Ithink that it is in favour of the view which I have expressed. I do not feelsure that Lord Trayner's language, which has been relied on as expressing thecontrary view, has not been strained beyond what was really intended. It is, I think, consistent with that language that what the learned Judge had in mind was the obligation of the vessel to remain even after the expiration of fixed lay days where there is a provision for demurrage.
Banks勋爵认为，Trayner勋爵的观点已经被Scutton勋爵在本法院的Inverkip Steamship Co. v. Bunge案中拒绝了。唯一能找到支撑Trayner勋爵观点的是在Saxon Ship Co.案。在该案中中，A.L. Smith勋爵正在处理煤炭买卖双方之间的情况，在煤矿的合同中，煤矿担保被合并了。对非日常和滞期的担保。判决的要点是买方违约的日期。正是在这方面，大法官以批准的方式提到了Trayner勋爵的判决，而且他很可能一直把这个意见局限在被已处在滞期中的装卸时间。
Banks勋爵认为和他一样，思考这个特殊的观点是没有权威性的，他可以自由地表达他自己的观点，他同意格Greer法官的判决，即在固定的装卸时间终止的时候，本案的租船人违约了。
Thinking, asI do, that this particular point is free from authority, and that I am atliberty to express my own opinion, I agree with Greer, J., in coming to the conclusion that at the termination of the fixed lay days the charterers in the present case were in breach.
因此，Banks勋爵认为唯一需要判决的问题是损害赔偿的问题。如果原告的索赔实质上是形式上虽然不是形式上对船舶滞留的索赔，但是这里要求的特殊损害是无法追偿的（Inverkip Steamship Co. v. Bunge）。根据本案的特殊情况，原告的主张在本质上与形式上完全不同，并且与船舶滞留的主张有本质区别。实质上，原告所说的是，如果租家按照约定的装率装货，他们就可以按照850份的标准来收取运费，而由于没有按照这个装率来装货，他们只能按544份标准来收取运费，他们从违反合同；直接流失的损失是他们将获得的运费金额与他们实际获得的金额之间的差额。我认为，这种损失可被认为是损害赔偿是可以追偿的，因为违反了合同以约定的装率来装货。
This loss is, in my opinion, on the facts of this case recoverable as damages for the breach of contract to load at the agreed rate.
Banks勋爵认为有一段时间，他倾向于认为，如果双方同意滞期费率，合同应该被解释为确定任何违反在给定时间内加载或者解除义务的损害赔偿的比例。他不认为这样的观点是健全的，在这个问题上他没有任何权威性。值得注意的是，在Saxon Ship Co案中，并没有建议滞期费用索赔不包括因滞留这艘船而引起的特殊损害的额外索赔。
最终，Banks勋爵判租家上诉不成功，为节约成本必须予以驳回。
At one timeI was inclined to think that where parties had agreed a demurrage rate, thecontract should be construed as one fixing the rate of damages for any breachof the obligation to load or discharge in a given time on further considerationI do not think that such a view is sound. I can find no authority on the point,and it is noticeable that in the Saxon Ship Co. case, sup, it was not suggestedthat the claim for demurrage excluded the additional claim for special damagearising from the detention of this vessel.
In my opinion the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Atkin勋爵认为，这个案例在航运界提出了相当重要的问题，令人惊讶的是没有什么直接的权威来指导他们。问题在于，如果承租人未能在装卸时间内完成装货，而在滞期时间内，船东方并没有过错，但导致了船舶无法装到和如果在装卸时间内完成装货一样多的货物，但由于容量减少，从喋喋不休的人那里得到满载的货物，除了滞期费之外，损失也在承租人身上。
This case raises a question of considerable importance in shipping circles, and it is surprising that there is so little direct authority to guide us. The questionis whether, if the charterer has failed to complete the loading of the ship within the lay days, and the ship during the demurrage days becomes without the default of the shipowner unable to carry as much cargo as she would if loaded within the lay days, but receives from the chatterer a full cargo for her diminished capacity, the loss falls upon the charterer in addition to the demurrage.
在Atkin勋爵看来，应该做出对船东有利的判决。权威当局的结果似乎是，在确定若干装卸时间的合同和其后的滞期日期的规定中，承租人在约定装卸时间内承担了装载完整货物的约束义务，除了船东或任何除外的运作，在本案中并未出现这种情况。如果在装卸时间届满但没有装满货物，承租人已经违约。关于滞期费用的规定量化的不是完全违反而造成的损害赔偿，而仅仅是船舶滞留造成的损害。关于船舶获得约定损害赔偿的权利，承租人有权留置船舶，以便在可能的情况下履行其违约合同，从而减轻进一步的损害。但是，如果出于船东违约以外的原因，承租人不能履行合同下的义务，即在固定日期内将全部完整的货物装上船，违约不得修复，损害不完全缓解，船东可以追讨其已经承担的违约金或者未经算定的滞留损失赔偿金。在Atkin勋爵他看来，说滞期费用的天数是延长的装卸时间这是错误的，除非合同是如此绘制的。相反，滞期日期是承租人违约的日子，这个观点仅仅解释了他所设想的一个公认的原则，除非明确规定，那些在装卸时间内可保护租家的除外情况，在滞期的时间中将不再能够保护他。
In my opinion our decision should be for the shipowner. The result of the authorities appears to be that, in a contract fixing a number of lay days and providing fordays at demurrage thereafter, the charterer enters into a binding obligation toload a complete cargo within the lay days, subject to any default by the shipowner or to the operation of any exceptions, matters which do not arise in this case. If the lay days expire without a full cargo having been loaded, the charterer has broken his contract. The provisions as to demurrage quantify the damages not for the complete breach, but only such damages as arise from the detention of the vessel. For correlative to the ship's right to receive the agreed damages is the charterer's right to detain the ship for the purpose of enabling him, if possible, to perform his broken contract and so mitigate any further damage. If however, for reasons other than the shipowner's default, the charterer becomes unable to do that which he contracted to do, namely, put a full and complete cargo on board during the fixed lay days, the breach is neverrepaired, the damages are not completely mitigated, and the shipowner may recover the loss that he has incurred in addition to his liquidated damages orhis unliquidated damages for detention. It appears to me to be incorrect to say that days on demurrage are extended lay days, unless the contract is so drawn. On the contrary, demurrage day are days in which the charterer is in breach, and this view alone explains what I conceive to be the well-established principle that,unless by express stipulation, exceptions that would protect the charterer during lay days no longer protect him during demurrage days.
Atkin勋爵认为如果滞留规定直接延长合同履行时间或者放弃违约，在装卸时间期间或之后及滞期期间之间，超级违法可能没有区别。然而在Reid v. Hoskins案，Avery v. Bowden案及 Espositov. Bowden,案，显而易见的是，这些决定被视为重大的指控或证明非法（爆发战争和随之而来的与敌人交易）在非传统日子期间，即在履约和违约之前。在这种情况下，承租人是可以原谅的，Atkin勋爵认为他不知道随后的违法行为将会减轻承租人应得的违约后果。如果发生这种情况，会导致合同受挫，那么根据英格兰确立的原则，即使不在苏格兰，合同也将结束，应计负债仍然存在。但据说在这种情况下，没有证据表明租船人没有提供，也不愿意装载足以满足夏季装货的货物。Atkin勋爵他认为可以提供这样的货物。然而，在他看来，租船人已经行使了选择将船舶命令到英国卸的权利，这个合同必须作为英国的一个合同来处理。在这种情况下，感到满意的是，当船长停止装载时，他们已经向船长说明了最终目的地是英国。如果是这样的话，那么租船人就没有权利继续装货，船长有权拒绝任何额外的货物，如果在冬天的几个月内进行运输，将会使他受到“商船法”的惩罚。超出冬季载重的货物将不是合法的货物。因此，船舶在航行当日航行的是完整的货物，但如果在装卸时间内完成了装载，则不到全部货物。对此造成的任何损害，Atkin勋爵认为是租船人承担责任。赔偿金额的问题并没有在这里出现。
因此，Atkin勋爵判上诉不成功，基于费用问题上诉必须被驳回。
It is said,however, that in this case there is no evidence that the charterers had not furnished and were not willing to load a cargo sufficient to satisfy a summerloading. I will assume that such a cargo was available Nevertheless, it aappears to me that, the charterers having exercised their option to order theship to the United Kingdom, the charter must be treated for all purposes as a United Kingdom charter. In the circumstances of this case I am satisfied thatthey made it clear to the master when they ceased loading that the eventual destination was the
I think,therefore, that the appeal fails and should be dismissed with costs.
Sargant勋爵认为，Greer法官的判决应该得到肯定。1923年5月26日的原始租船合同无疑预计该船应该装满850份标准货物。 而在合同失败的情况下，现在的有关租船合同是在1923年9月19日定的，通过原来租船合同的背书，并采用了一些原始合同的条款，在他看来，各方必须一直考虑同样的满载货物。正如事件所证明的那样，有足够的时间让这艘船及时到达Archangel，装载满载的货物，并前往指定的英国港口，在抵达的时候并没有任何风险。在解释合同的这一部分时，发现承租人可以选择到一些外国港口的任何一个，但这并不重要。
Sargant勋爵认为这个观点给所用的字提供了简明直接的含义，他不认为承租人有任何不合理的义务。毫无疑问，这意味着该船应及时到达Archangel，为租船人选择装载全部货物，无论是英国港口还是外国港口。如果船舶到达Archangel的时间被推迟，以致不可避免地到达英国港口的全部货物的替代方案，那么租家如果选择前往英国港口并仅装载冬季货物，则可能会退回如果未能装载超过满足英国港口要求的货物的索赔，则应将抵达船舶的违约情况更正。此外，如果第1 条中“full and complete cargo”，满载和全部货物一词的含义是要解释的(正如上诉人所要求的那样）对于可以合法运送到英国港口的货物，其结果必须是相同的。Sargant勋爵认为，在确定货物的时间是租船人接船开始装货的时间，即10月4日，而不是事实上停止装货的时间。这不能说是由于他们滞留装货，他们有权减少他们有义务装载的货物的范围，从而利用自己的过错获利。
This view gives a plain and straightforward meaning to the words used and does not Ithink impose any unreasonable obligation on the charterers. For it is no doubt implied that the ship shall reach Archangel in time to load a full cargo,either for a British port or for a foreign port at the option of the charterers; and, should the arrival of the ship at Archangel be delayed so as to render the alternative of proceeding to a British port with a full cargounavoidable, the charterers, if electing to proceed to a British port andloading a winter cargo only, could ret up the default of the ship in arrival against any claim for failure to load more than such a cargo as would satisfy the requirements of British ports Further, if the meaning of the phrase"full and complete cargo" in Clause 1 is to be interpreted (as the appellants have urged) with reference to the cargo which could lawfully be carriedto a British port, the result must be the same. For the time at which that cargo must be ascertained is,in my judgment, the time when the charterers received the ship for loading,that is, Oct. 4, and not the time at which they ceased to load in fact. It cannot be that by their delay in loading they were entitled to diminish the extent of the cargo which they were under obligation to load, and thus take advantage of their own default.
Sargant勋爵认为接下来需要考虑租船合同第三条条款的效力。在这里，他同意博学的法官的观点，即该条款的第二句话并没有扩大该条款第一句中表达的装货时间的明确义务，而只是对每日滞留以25英镑的损害进行评估由于租船人没有按照规定的装率装货，而且顺便说明他们在这方面的义务不是合同的本质，而且在这方面的某些不当行为将不会使船东可视合同已毁并撤回其船舶的权利。这样的解释完全影响了该条款的语言，并且与关于这个主题的教科书中所表达的，总结了这些判决的总体效果的观点一致。
It is next necessary to consider the effect of Clause 3 of the charter-party. Here I agree with the view of the learned Judge that the second sentence of that clause doesnot enlarge the express obligations as to time of loading expressed in the first sentence of the clause, but merely assesses damages at £25 a day for any detention of the shipdue to the failure of the charterers to load at the prescribed rate, and incidentally indicates that their obligations in this respect are not of the essence of the contract, and that some unpunctuality in this respect will not entitle the owners to treat the contract as repudiated and to withdraw their ship. Such aconstruction gives full effect to the language of the clause and is consistentwith the views expressed in the text books on the subject which summarise thegeneral effect of the decisions. (See Scrutton on Charter-Parties, 12th Ed., p.348, and Carver on Carriage by Sea, 7th Ed., pp. 828-9, and note on p. 907.)And this is in accordance with the view taken of somewhat analogous provisionsin contracts for the sale and purchase of property (See Patrick v. Milner, 2 C.P.D. 342, and Howe v. Smith, 27 Ch.D.89.)
那么，根据租船合同第3条的规定，船舶每天滞留的损害赔偿金为25英镑，在此基础上计算出的赔偿额是否为船东在这种情况下是否可持续？Sargant勋爵他并不这么认为。对船东造成的损失和索赔，就是损失另一个性质，即租船人违反合同规定装载全部完整的货物所造成的运费损失。根据他的理解，第1条的责任义务，博学的法官已经正确地描述为主要义务。第3款第2句的目的是在履行这一主要义务的过程中对船舶的滞留提供赔偿，而不是对主要义务本身的违约给予赔偿。毫无疑问，同样可能导致滞留索赔的滞留也导致违反了装满全部货物的义务，但是违反后一项义务造成了明确的单独损失，不受任何损失的损害仅仅因为滞留而产生的；或者以另一种方式提出这个问题，第3款第二句的目的是为了确定为此目的和在履行第1款的主要义务的过程中所造成的损害，即装载如果还要确定由于违反主要义务本身而造成的损害，则无法扩大第二句的范围。
Sargant勋爵认为如果与上述观点相反，将第三条第二句解读为承租人可能有一些额外的时间来以每天约定的速率装货，他认为也会得到同样的结果。即使在这种解释下，他认为这不能被视为延长协议的时间，以便为装载全部货物留出额外的时间。它不能被合理地解释为这样一个协议，即在装载中这样的额外时间可能会减少最终要装载的货物的数量。
The same result would I think follow if, contrary to the view above expressed, the second sentence of Clause 3 were to be read as an agreement that the charterers might have some extra time for loading at an agreed rate per day. Even on this interpretation, this could not in my view be read as extending further than an agreement to allow some extra time for the purpose of loading a full cargo. It could not properly be construed as an agreement that such extra time might be occupied in loading as to diminish the quantity of cargo that had ultimately tobe loaded.
Sargant勋爵认为也许应该注意到上诉人提出的进一步主张，即他们只需要提供货物，不要装货，也没有证据表明他们没有提供完整的夏季货物。然而Sargant勋爵认为，在这个租船合同下，租船人不得不既提供又装载。没有证据表明船上对于第20条所述的协助有任何过错。也没有表明船长在任何时候都拒绝接受超过冬季载重线的货物。Sargant勋爵认为从船长10月16日和19日的信中得知，船长愿意接受满足夏季载重的货物，但如果在10月20日之后被命令开往英国的港口，依条文规定他可能会招致罚款。这一段提到的问题并不是双方之间的争议点，他们不是由租家在辩护过程中提出的；而且他们似乎没有在博学的法官面前辩论过。
最终，从成本考虑，Sargant勋爵驳回了租家的上诉。
There was afurther contention on the part of the appellants that should perhaps benoticed, namely, that they had only to provide cargo, not to load it, and thatthere was no evidence that they had not provided a full summer cargo. In my judgment, under this charter-party, the charterers had both to provide and to load; and there is no evidence that there was any default on the part of the ship to provide the assistance mentioned in Clause 20. Nor is it shown that the master at any time declined to accept more than a winter cargo. From his letters of Oct. 16 and19, I should gather that he was willing to accept a full summer cargo provided that, if he was ordered to sail after Oct. 20 to a British port, provision was made for the fines which he might incur. The points mentioned in this paragraph are not the real points in issue between the parties; they are not raised by the charterers' defence in the action; and they do not seem to have been argued before the learned Judge.
总结：
在本案中，因为租家未能以合同约定的装率来装货，导致了延误，致使船舶不能在10月20日前离港开航，以便在10月30日之前抵达英国卸港，此时可以按夏季载重线来装货。由于租家未能按合同的装率来完成装货作业，导致船舶只能按冬季载重线来装货，从而导致了亏舱索赔。在对事实情况及条款分析之后，法官认为船长并没有拒绝装载货物，少装货的原因是租家违反合同装率的要求导致了船舶延误，从而使船舶无法在10月30日抵达英国卸港；同时租家违反了合同条款，未能提供满载和全部的货物（full and complete cargo）。最终，Banks勋爵，Atkin勋爵及Sargant勋爵一致判租家得为亏舱费负责。
关于滞留延误的问题，Banks勋爵认为，对于已经规定了装卸实际及滞期费的情况下，时间并不是合同的本质，除非在某些特殊情况下，船东不能断言合同已被毁约，除非船舶确实呆了足够长的时间来使这个问题得到检验。船东没有权利，只是因为装卸时间已经用尽，在合同仍未完成的时候便认为合同已到尽头并撤回他的船。这个可能很好地回答本文开头的问题，在合约已经有装卸率，滞期费等条文的情况下，船东没有权利私自撤船，除非这种滞留延误已经足够长或者是由于租家自己明确提出的，没有货，船东可以另找替代航次；否则船东都得一直呆在港口等货。
关于这个因未能在装卸时间内完成装卸义务的问题，再来看看随后的判例。在SUISSE ATLANTIQUE SOCIETE D'ARMEMENT MARITIME S.A. v.N.V. ROTTERDAMSCHE KOLEN CENTRALE案中，Sellers勋爵在谈到本案时说到，亏舱费的赔偿的追偿是单独违约而完全独立于船舶的滞留延误，当然，拖延时间超出了装卸货时间导致无法履行义务装载全部完整的货物，当船舶按照夏季标准取得总量时可以装载完整的货物。法院允许的亏舱费是与使用损失无关的额外和独立的损失。滞留延误期限与未能装载满载全部货物所造成的损失无关，这是一种不同类型的损失。如果这艘船在装卸时间内开航但少装300吨，那么亏舱费的索赔仍然会成功。
The damages recovered for dead freight were for a separate breach of contract and were wholly independent of the detention of the vessel, although it was of course the delay beyond the lay days that created the inability to perform the other aspect of the obligation, which was to load a full and complete cargo, which could have been loaded when the ship was in a position to take the total quantity according to summer standards. The dead freight claim which the Court allowed was an additional and independent loss unrelated to the loss of use. The length of detention was not relevant to the loss from failure to load a full and complete cargo, which was a loss of a different kind. If the vessel had sailed within her laytime with 300 tons short the claim for dead freight would still have succeeded.
Diplock勋爵说到，由于装货时间延误，船东无法运输全部夏季货物。因此，违规行为不能在装载日内装载有两个后果：第一，拖延期间船舶不能作为运费赚取工具使用；其次，延误结束后，如果她已经及时装货，那么她的运费收益工具就不那么有效了。法院的做法是不同的，当然，有一种行为构成了违约，即在装载日子里没有装货。Greer法官，及Sargant勋爵，我认为，Atkin勋爵认为这违反了两项义务：一是在装卸时间内装载的义务，另一种是装载满载全部货物的义务。什么是“满载和全部的货物”是在合同条款履行的时候确定的。
The facts of that case have been sufficiently referred to by my brotherSellers. The circumstances were that, as a result of the delay in loading, theowners were unable to carry the full summer cargo.Accordingly, the breach in failing to load within the lay days had two consequences: first, that for the period of the delay the vessel was unable to be used as a freight-earning instrument; and, secondly, after the delay was over she was a less effective freight-earning instrument than she would have been if she had been loaded in time.The approach of the members of the Court was different. There was, of course, one act which constituted a breach, namely, the failure to load during the lay days. Mr.Justice Greer, certainly Lord Justice Sargant, and, I think, Lord Justice Atkin, took the view that that constituted a breach of two obligations: one the obligation to loadduring laytime and the other the obligation to load a full and complete cargo.What was "a full and complete cargo" was to be ascertained at the date at which it would have been loaded had the terms of the contract been fulfilled.
但在该案中，Diplock勋爵并不认为The“Sagatind”案的判决对他有约束力。
在The“Bonde”案中，Potter勋爵他不认为买方已经证明卖家的违约行为是额外或单独的，未能在装卸时间内装完或以约定的速率。他认为，除了滞期费外，买家没有单独的损害赔偿的权利。
Accordingly I do not consider that the buyers have demonstrated a breach additional to or separate from that of failing to load within the lay days and/or at the agreedrate and I hold that no separate right to damages in addition to demurrage arises for the purposes of the argument as to circuity of action.
结合这几个判例可以看出，如果合同已经约定了装卸率以及滞期费标准，那么如果租家未能在可用的装卸时间内完成装卸货的话，除了滞期费外，并不赋予船东索赔额外损坏赔偿的权利。
笔者认为，本文所说的The“Sagatind”案，法官判租家违约得承担亏舱费的主要依据是，在签约当时，租家违反了合同，未能提供“full and complete cargo”的义务，因此判租家得承担亏舱费。因此作为船东，为了避免不可预判的原因导致亏舱问题，可以在合同中加入这类条款。如果最终导致了少装货，船东有此条款的保护，将可以找租家索赔亏舱费。
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
