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

　　2.157 This correction is necessary because the earlier cases construed such clauses as setting a standard and, furthermore, one based on even loading. However, the problem can only arise with a part cargo.

　　2.157 这一修正是很有必要，因为较早的案例已经将这些条款做了解释并规定为一种标准，而且是建立在均衡装载的基础上。然而，问题就是出现在部分货物上。

　　2.158 A further aspect was considered by Bingham J in Cargill Inc v. Rionda de Pass Ltd (The Giannis Xilas). This case concerned the shipment of a parcel of bagged sugar from Antwerp in a vessel with an unconventional layout, in that one of the hatches gave, via a common tween deck access, to two of the lower holds. In his judgment, Bingham J rejected a submission by the buyers that where a hatch gave access to two different cargo spaces, one of which was served by another hatch, then the quantity of cargo in the hold served by two hatches could be halved or otherwise split. He said:

　　I ﬁnd no warrant in the language used for thinking in terms of notional hatches or notional metal bars, nor do I think it legitimate to pay attention to cargo spaces, which are not mentioned, in preference to hatches which are.

　　2.158 在Cargill Inc v. Rionda de Pass Ltd (The Giannis Xilas)案，Bingham法官从另一个角度进行探讨。该案涉及的是从安特卫普用船舶运送一票袋装糖，那条船舶的构造很特殊，其中一个舱口由普通的二层甲板的进口进入两个底层货舱。在其判决中，Bingham法官驳回了买方的主张，即由一个舱口(No.3Hatch)进入两个不同的(No.2底舱和No.3底舱)载货空间时，其中一个载货空间(No.2底舱)又可以通过另一个舱口(No.2Hatch)进行作业，那么，由2个舱口(No.2Hatch和No.3Hatch)作业的那个货舱(NO.2底舱)的货物量就应减半或平分。法官认为：

　　我在（租船合同）所使用的语言上还找不到有任何依据（证明双方）运用概念上的舱口或金属隔栅进行思考（对No.2底舱做出无形/假设的分割），而且，在弄清哪些是作业舱口之前，要先关注尚未提及的载货空间舱，我认为这是不合乎道理的。
　　

　　2.159 Although Bingham J’s attention was drawn to the Charterparty Laytime Deﬁnitions 1980, which provide for a hatch capable of being worked by two gangs simultaneously to be counted as two hatches, as do the Voylayrules 1993, he also found on the evidence that for it to have been done in this case, whilst theoretically possible and occasionally adopted, would have been contrary to what was considered good and accepted practice at Antwerp.

　　2.159 尽管Bingham法官已经关注到《1980年租船合同装卸时间定义》，其规定：一个能够同时进行两个班组作业的舱口计为两个舱口，并且在Voylayrules1993也是这样规定的，但是，他还是找到了证据，在本案中也是这样做了，虽然在理论上是可能的，在特殊场合偶尔也可采用，但它却与在安特卫普被认为是良好的和可以接受的操作习惯背道而驰。

　　2.160 The meaning of ‘‘available workable hatch’’ was also considered in a London Arbitration. In that case, the vessel had four holds and ﬁve hatches at upper deck level, hold No 4 being served by two hatches. Each hatch was served by two pairs of winches, except for No 2 hatch which was served by two pairs of winches at the forward end and two more at the after end. Each end of No 2 hatch could therefore be worked simultaneously.

　　2.160在一个伦敦仲裁案也曾讨论过‘可作业的舱口’的含义。在那个案子中，船舶有4个货舱和在上一层甲板有5个舱口，第4号货舱可有两个舱口作业。每个舱口都有两套起货机，只有第2舱口，在其前后两头各有两套起货机。因此，在No.2舱的两头能够同时作业。
　　

　　2.161 The charterers submitted that the correct method of calculating the laytime allowed was to identify the hatch/hold with the most cargo, which they said in this case was hatch/hold No 2, and divide the quantity loaded by the rate of loading provided in the charter. The owners, however, contended that as hatches Nos 4 and 5, which both served No 4 hold, were the same size, then the same quantity would be loaded through each hatch, i.e. half the quantity stowed in hold No 4 which was actually greater than that stowed in hold No 2. Furthermore, as hatch No 2 was double rigged, the owners argued that it should count as two hatches and in support of this they pointed to the Charterparty Laytime Deﬁnitions. On this basis the cargo loaded through hatches Nos 4 and 5 would still be being loaded when all the cargo loaded through hatch No 2 had been ﬁnished.

　　2.161承租人主张：正确计算允许装卸时间的方法是首先确认最大货量的舱口/货舱，也就是该案所谓的第2舱口/货舱的货物数量，用装载的货量除以该租船合同中所规定的装货率。然而，船东却争论说：对应第4底（货）舱的是第4和第5两个大小相同的舱口，这样，通过这两个舱口所装的货量就应相同，也就是说，实际上第4货舱所装货量的一半应大于第2货舱的货量，而且，由于第2货舱是双套装备，船东争辩说它应计为两个舱口，而且指出《1980年租船合同装卸时间定义》以支持这一主张。在此基础上，则当通过第2舱口的货物已全部装完时，第4舱口和第5舱口将仍在装货。

　　2.162 The arbitrators, however, rejected the owners’ arguments, saying that the focal point of the dispute turned upon the construction of the words ‘‘per available workable hatch’’ and applying the principles laid down in the cases, the charterers were right. The Charterparty Laytime Deﬁnitions were intended for voluntary adoption to avoid arguments over the construction of words and phrases, but the parties had not in this case chosen to adopt them. What was relevant was that the largest quantity of cargo had passed through hatch No 2. Large as that hatch was, no notional argument could make it into two. The same, of course, applies to the Voylayrules 1993.

　　2.162 然而，仲裁员却否决了船东的主张，说：争议的焦点就在于对‘每个可作业舱口’这一词的解释并适用先例中已经规定的原则，认定承租人的说法是正确的。《租船合同装卸时间定义》的意图是自愿采用这些定义以免在这些名词和短语的解释上产生争议，但在该案中，双方当事人并未选择采用这些定义。本案所相关的是第2舱口所装的货量是最大的。像这样大小的舱口，将它分为2个舱口在理论上是没有争议的。当然，它（双方自愿采用的原则）同样适用于《1993年航次租船合同装卸时间解释规则》。
　　