2018-05-21
666 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
Availability of holds
货舱的可使用性
2.163 The insertion of ‘‘available’’ in the phrase ‘‘per available working hatch’’ does not affect the initial calculation of laytime allowed, but acts as a built-in exceptions clause. In Compania de Navigaci´on Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus & Cie, Devlin J put it this way:
Unavailability is therefore outside the formula and a matter for a separate calculation. You take the formula figure just as you would take a specified number of lay days and make the appropriate deductions, where necessary, for Sundays and holidays and bad weather and unavailability of hatches. It is not irrelevant to observe that the unavailability must be something that matters, that is, it must interfere with the work. If, for example, a hatch broke down after a hold had been completely loaded, it clearly would not matter. If... (one of the smaller holds) broke down at the beginning for, say, four days, equally it would not matter, for it would not be long enough to prevent the loading of the hold within the standard time.
Thus, unlike the inclusion of weather in ‘‘weather working day’’, for unavailability to be excluded, there must be a causal connection. Where availability is not added to the laytime phrase, then the situation as to unavailability may be governed by whatever exception clauses are contained in the charterparty. However, in Cargill Inc v. Marpro Ltd (The Aegis Progress), Hobhouse J suggested that even if ‘‘available’’ is not added to the laytime phrase, then the word ‘‘workable’’ might of itself exclude periods of non-availability. He commented:
Availability may overlap with workability. The relevant clause in the Zita case specifically used the word ‘‘available’’ as well as workable. Mr Justice Devlin treated unavailability as an exception from laytime as opposed to part of the description of laytime. Obviously, as contemplated by Mr Justice Bingham (in The Giannis Xilas), events such as winch breakdowns may interrupt loading or discharging and may conveniently be treated as periods of unavailability in the way he suggests. For myself I am unpersuaded that to introduce the word ‘‘available’’ either into the clause or the judicial discussion adds anything of substance... Lest it be thought that the word ‘‘available’’ has to be introduced to cover the situation where a hatch cannot be worked for reasons other than that the hold is full or empty, this is neither correct as a matter of English language—the word ‘‘workable’’ is subject to no such limitation—nor was it the view of Mr Justice Bingham who expressly included in his definition of ‘‘workable’’ the words—
. . . being a hatch the party responsible for loading or discharging is not for any reason disabled from working... (p. 513).
Fullness and emptiness are the commonest reasons and therefore feature most prominently in the cases. But The Sandgate clearly contemplates that there may be other reasons and in my opinion Mr Justice Bingham was clearly right to formulate the definition as he did.
2.163 在‘每个可用于作业的舱口’这一短语中插入‘可用于’一词并不影响最初关于允许的装卸时间的计算，但它却起到嵌入式的除外性条款的作用。在Compania de Navegacion Zita SA v. Louis Dreyfus & Cie—案中，Devlin法官是这样解释的：
因此，不可用性就成了例外情况，应是单独计算的事项。你得出的公式数字是你想要得到的装卸时间的具体数值，如果有必要，再做出适当的必要的扣减，如星期日、节假日、恶劣天气以及不可用的舱口。不可用性必然是某些重要事项，亦即必然干扰了作业，对它进行评论不是没有关系。比如，当一个货舱装完货后，该舱口就中止作业了，显然，这不再是重要了。如果……（比较小的货舱之一）在开始装货后中止了作业，比如说，中止了 4天之久，同样，这也不要紧，因为这么短的时间并不足以妨碍该货舱在标准时间内完成装载。
因此，不像‘良好天气工作日’中包含有‘好天气’这一词那样，要把不可用性一词除外，必须要有一个因果关系。当可使用性并未附加于装卸时间这一短语中时，有关不可用性的情况可以用租船合同中的除外条款来限定。然而，在Cargill Inc v. Marpro Ltd (The Aegis Progress )—案中，Hobhouse法官提出：即使‘可用的’这一词没有加在装卸时间这一短语的前面，‘可作业的’这一词仍然可以将不可用性期间排除在外。他评述道：
可用性—词可能与可作业性—词相重叠。在Zka—案中的有关条款特别使用了‘可用的’一词，也用了可作业的一词。Devlin法官将不可用性一词视为装卸时间的除外情况，这与（有关‘不可用性’一词）作为装卸时间的描述性部分相反。显然，像Bingham法官（在Giannis Xilas 案中）所考虑的那样，诸如绞盘起货机故障的事件而使装卸货作业中断这段期间很方便地用他的方法定为不可用性。我本人则也没有被说服去相信‘可用的’一词不论是加入条款中还是在司法讨论中，会产生什么实质性的东西……免得人们认为引用“可用的’’一词会包涵除了货舱已装满货卸空之外的舱口不能工作其它任何的原因这种情况，作为英语语言来说，这种含义不是正确的——而‘可作业的’一词则无此限制——它也不是Bingham法官的观点，其观点已明确包含在他对‘可作业的’一词所下的定义之中——
……作为可作业的舱口，是没有任何理由可使负责装卸货工作的一方无法作业的舱口……(第513页)
装满和卸空是案例中最普遍的理由，因此也是最突出的特点。但是，在Sandgate —案中却明显考虑到或许会还有其他的理由，但是，我认为Bingham法官先生所确立的定义是完全正确的。
《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）
