2018-06-10
1877 为浅显易懂，本文先从近期碰到的航速索赔争议说起，来进一步谈谈有关航速索赔的相关问题。
一条好望角型船H轮，以NYPE46格式签订了期租合同。其中合同对于好天气的规定，似乎没有什么特别的地方，即通常理解的4级风3级浪，没有不利的涌浪/顶流的影响，描述如下：
SPEED/CONSUMPTION BASIS GOOD WEATHER CONDITIONS OF UPTO BEAUFORT FORCE 4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE3 AND NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE BY SWELL / ADVERSE CURRENTS.
承租人按合同第59条规定如下，委托了气导来监控船舶的航速油耗。
Clause 59
The Charterers may supply an independent weather bureau’s advice to the master, during voyages specified by the Charterers, and the master shall comply with the reporting procedure ofthe weather bureau, however the master remains responsible for the safe navigationand choice of route. Evidence of weather conditions shall be taken from vessel’s deck logs and independent weather bureau’s reports. In the event of a discrepancy in weather conditions between deck logs and the independent weather bureau’s reports, weather bureau’s reports should be taken as final & binding, Independent weather bureau to be WNI only.
For the purpose of this Charter Party good weather conditions shall be defined as weather conditions not exceeding Beaufort scale 4 and Douglas sea state 3/ no adverse current . “About” on speed means 0.5 knot allowance. “About” on consumption means 5% allowance.
这两个条款，其实已经有冲突了。好天气的定义部分，4级风3级浪部分一致，但对涌浪，流的部分完全不一致。一个说是NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE BY SWELL / ADVERSE CURRENTS，没有涌浪/逆流的不利的影响；另一个说的是no adverse current，即没有逆流。
期租的第一个航次，西澳回国的航次，空载，重载都显示有时间损失和燃油超耗。笔者在收到报告后并没有马上回复，过了一段时间发了封简短的邮件如下：
Sorry for late reply, rather busy these days.
Owners have reviewed voyage reports, but regret that Owners could not accept.
As per our charterparty, Speed and consumption just basis good weather conditions of upto Beaufort Force 4 and Douglas sea state 3 and NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE BY SWELL/ADVERSE CURRENTS.
Just select some days as attached which are showing the vessel encounter adverse current, especially on 11th/Apr.The vessel encounter strong adverse currents on that date.
Consideration the reports applied wrong data and not meet the requirement of C/P, Thus alleged underperformance claims are not acceptable by Owners.
Charterers are not entitled to make any deduction if without Owners’consent or surrender correct reports for Owners’ further review.
在这封电邮只是提到说承租的气导报告有误，没有扣除那些受到了涌浪/逆流的不利的影响的天气，因此该气导报告不被认可接受，要求承租人指示气导公司修改报告。
过了几天仍然没收到承租人答复，又发了如下电邮，继续声明气导公司没有严格按照合同条款来评估船舶的航速油耗，依据相关先例，因此适用法律错误。这里需要注意的是，如果没有合同条款作保障，盲目要求修改报告，很大可能会越修改，结果越差。
笔者一直只说好天气必须是没有涌浪/逆流的不利的影响的目的是，让承租人自己承认，气导公司选用的好天气是有涌浪/逆流的情况，但是可能是有利的影响，所以他们会狡辩不是不利的影响，从而可以用来作分析。
Further to Owners’ last comments for laden voyage evaluation report, Charterers please find attached which are showing the vessel encounter adverse current during those dates.
Meanwhile,As the charterers may well aware that the vessel’s speed maybe affected during she transist narrow water area, The vessel should adjust speed and course frequently and keep sharp lookout for safety.
Anyhow,Owners wish to remind that the vessel's speed and consumption warranty, if any, is given on the basis of "good weather",i.e. UPTO B.F 4/DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3 WITH NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE BY SWELL /ADVERSE CURRENTS. However, WNI's reports are prepared in all weather conditions, which is not in line with the c/p and the authorities in The Didymi case and The Gas Enterprise case and are therefore simply wrong under English law.
Charterers please require WNI to surrender revised reports for Owners’ perusal. Before Owners safe receipt revised reports and consent, Charterers are not entitled to make any deduction for alleged speed claims.
Thanks for charterers’ attention and good cooperation.
随后，收到承租人的答复如下。果然承租人承认，空载，重载航次中被选为好天气的那几天，虽然都有逆流，但是这些影响是有利的，因此承租人坚信可以用作分析。
For the ballast, owners claim that
1.Thevessel encountered the adverse current during the good weather days
2.Vessel’sspeed maybe affected during the vessel transits narrow water area.
During the good weather days, i.e. Mar 25, 26, 29 and 30, despite adverse currents were observed, the daily net currents were positive.
WNI assesses a good weather day if the good weather conditions prevail for a majority of the day and the daily net currentis positive.
The chart owners present is not detailed enough to shows the current values the vessel encountered every 6 hours during the good weather days, which is not suitable for vessel’s performance evaluation.
There is no indication that vessel’s speed was negatively affected during the good weather days.
The vessel maintained the normal RPM and no report from the Master that vessel speed was negatively affected.
Having said the above, WNI report stands.
We make the comment for the laden voyage that assame as the ballast voyage, during the good weather days, i.e. Apr 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18, despite adverse currents were observed, the daily net currents were positive.
鉴于此，承租人及其气导公司，非常自信地把9日及10日，严重顶流的两天算成了好天气。
收到承租人修改过的报告发现，时间损失和超耗的燃油量均变多，同时仍然没有按要求修改，继续发邮件要求修改，但承租人保持沉默。之后，发如下电邮给承租人，明确指出要严格按照合同条款来作航速油耗评估。好天气有4个条件，一是最多4级风，二是3级浪，三是没有逆流，四是没有涌浪。
Owners are still awaiting for charterers’ revised reports.
As the charterers well aware that the contract must read as awhole. Refer to clause 53 which provides:
Clause 53
The following criteria to apply for the evaluation of vessel’s performance:
(a) Average speed and average consumption to be calculated from sea buoy to sea buoy excluding periods of slow steaming on Charterers order or for reasons of safety or standingby or assisting another vessel in distress.
(b) Speed and consumption basis good weather conditions of up to Beaufort force 4 and Douglassea state 3 with no adverse currents / swell.
(c) The effects of currents during periods of good weather are to be expressly excluded from the performance assessment.
(d) 0.5 knot allowance for owner to be applied for speed assessment.
(e) 5% allowance for owner to be applied to bunker consumption.
(f) Bunker saving to offset any time lost andvice versa.
It’s clear that good weather condition should be ①wind upto Beaufort force 4, ②sea upto Douglas sea state 3,③no adverse currents,④ no swell or no adverse swell.
And effects of currents during good weather are to be excluded,means should be in Owners’ favour.
Charterers please instruct WNI to amend their reports which should comply with above conditions strictly.
Meanwhile, Owners wish to point out that line 9-10 already been deleted in preamble, as per authority in The “Matrix” case, Owners therefore no warranty during the service. For this the charterers may also double check from their legal dept.
Owner are looking forward to receiving charterers’ positive confirmation by return.
如之前文章多次提到，合约解释必须将前后文，整个合同当着一个整体来看待。没有收到承租人答复，又继续解释说明如下。
首先指出，如承租人在11日电邮所承认的，在那些认为可作为分析的好天气的时候，有顶流。但是依据合同相关条款，有顶流的情况不算是好天气，不能用来作分析。因此承租人自打嘴巴，不能反悔，推翻自己先前所说的有顶流，现在改口说没有顶流。既然承认有顶流情况，那么依据合同条款，不再属于好天气，因此整个航次将没有好天气可以作为分析，那么所谓的索赔将不复存在。
其次支持，依据先例及未公开的仲裁判例，The “Matrix”案及The “Hebei Rainbow”案，仲裁员认为，在没有其它条款对船舶的航速油耗作出持续性保证的情况下，删除了前言9-10行，即意味着仅仅在签订租约，或者在交船的时候保证船舶的速度油耗；没有持续性保证，交船之后的航速油耗损失不可索赔。
Owners are still awaiting for charterers’ further comments or revised WNI reports. As Charterers they confirmed in their message date 11th/Mayas below, adverse currents were observed during alleged good weather days. But as per clause 53 (b) of this charterparty, good weather days should be with NO adverse currents/swell. Thus seem no any good weather days are suitable to apply for evaluation.
…During the good weather days, i.e. Mar 25, 26, 29 and 30, despite adverse currents were observed, thedaily net currents were positive.
Wemake the comment for the laden voyage that as same as the ballast voyage,during the good weather days, i.e. Apr 9, 10, 15, 17 and 18, despite adverse currents were observed, the daily net currents were positive.
Meanwhile, As Justice Atkinson said in Lorentzen v. White(1942) 74 Ll.L.Rep. 161 case, at page 163：
There are two decisions to that effect: Hurst v. Usborne, 18 C.B. 144; French v. Newgass, 3 C.P.D. 163. I need only read the headnote in the latter case:
A description in a charter-party that a vesselis of a particular class is not a continuing warranty, but applies only to the classification at the time the charter-party is made. Hurst v. Usborne approved of.
If that is true as to classification it must be equally true as to the description of the capacity of the ship. After all, the classification is not a condition, and the description of the capacity of aship merely amounts to a warranty that at the date of the charter-party the ship was of that capacity, and it does not amount to a warranty that the ship should continue to be of that capacity.
And unreported The “Matrix” case and The “Hebei Rainbow”case，The arbitrators held that there was no continuing warranty if delete lines 9-10 in the preamble of the NYPE. Thus all alleged speed claims will be not recoverable.
We have carefully considered the parties’ arguments and the authorities relied on. The position was by no means clear. However, it appears that, where a vessel is fixed on terms which include lines9-10 of the NYPE judicial opinion is divided as to whether the speed and consumption figures constitute as at (i) the date of the fixture or (ii) the delivery of the vessel into the charterparty.
The charterparty in question in this case didnot contain lines 9-10 because they had been expressly deleted and replaced by clause 29. That clause is headed “Vessel’s Description” and sets out thevessel’s capabilities. It does not include any words such as “throughout the currency of this charterparty” or “during the currency of this charterparty” which would have suggested that the vessel’s description as set out in thec lause was to be maintained throughtout the charterparty period.
In the light of the above we have concluded that there was no continuing warranty as to the vessel’s performance contained in the charterparty. The Charterers did not advance any alternative case on the failure to maintain and therefore their claim for under-performance/over-consumption does not succeed.
Hope above are clear and will be acceptable by the charterers.
For avoid any misunderstanding, Charterers please confirm they will waive their alleged underperformance claims by return.
笔者在和承租人争论H轮的航速索赔之前，已经提供了先前两个航次没有航速油耗索赔的气导报告，显示船舶的履约表现非常优异。如果H轮的承租人还需要，笔者还可以提供之前更多航次，没有索赔的气导报告。因此承租人将无法举证，H轮在交船的时候达不到合同规定的航速油耗。那么在合同中没有其它条款作出连续性保证的情况下，后续的任何风险将只能由承租人自己来承担。
在H轮的合同中，在船舶描述部分及附属条款中第53条和第59条，对好天气作出了不同的定义要求，那么作为合约的恰当解释，最终适用，能用来作航速油耗分析的好天气必须得符合：①不能超过4级风，②不能超过3级浪，③不能有顶流，以及④不能有涌浪。
其实条款还可以跟严格一点，把NO ADVERSE CURRENT修改为NO CURRENT，鉴于海上几乎都存在洋流的情况，那么将直接导致所有天气都不属于好天气。而出租人关于航速和油耗的保证仅仅是基于好天气的情况下做出的，如果整个航次都没有好天气的局面，那么承租人将无法提起有效的索赔。
接下来再来看看几个伦敦仲裁判例。
一、The “Evnia”案
在The “Evnia”案中，该轮在北海交船后，到印度尼西亚的Kendari锚地装镍矿回中国。承租人委托AWT来监控船舶的航速油耗，气导报告显示有航速索赔，但出租人否认，认为气导报告上显示的天气情况与航海日志上显示的不一致，船方的航海日志显示整个航次都没有好天气。
仲裁员认为在南下和北上的一小段航程，处于赤道附近，没有什么涌浪，符合好天气的情况。
21. In relation to the minimum swell arguments, I conclude that there would have been periods at the end of the southbound leg and the start of the north bound voyage when swellwould have been minimum or minimal so that weather conditions on those days can be considered for the purposes of compliance or otherwise with the speed warranty.
仲裁员认为航海日志中记载的天气条件通常由驾驶员根据他们每小时的经验或至少在每次更换值班时的经验进行。因此，船长提出的中午报告不一定代表过去24小时内遇到的天气情况。租船合同要求提供航海日志的副本，以了解每小时如何记录情况，但出租人拒绝提供。
22. Weather conditions noted in the logbooks are usually made by the officers on the bridge on the basis of their experience every hour or at least at each change of watch. The noon report made by the Master may therefore not necessarily be representative of weather conditions encountered over the previous 24 hours. The Charters asked to see copies of the log books to see how conditions were noted on an hourly basis, but Owners objected to the time and expense involved in producing these, with which view I agreed given the small amount at stake in this Reference.
仲裁员认为出租人没有解释如何评估这些报告或记录的天气情况，认为根据他们的经验，在船上注明的天气条件与由气导公司评估的天气条件之间存在一致的差异并不罕见。来自船舶的报告通常基于经验和观察，而由气导公司评估的报告则是基于卫星成像评估的，有时可能是来自其他船舶的报告。仲裁人认为他们不知道这艘船是否配备了风速计，可以准确读出真实和明显的风速和风向；仲裁员有些奇怪的是，船舶显然没有携带这样的设备，可以消除租船者对船只报告的天气条件的频繁批评。
23. The Owners have not explained how these reported or logged weather conditions are assessed, but it is not uncommon, in my experience, for there to be consistent discrepancies between weather conditions noted on board the vessel and those assessed by weather routing companies. Reports from the ship are usually based on experience and observation, while those assessed by weather routing companiesare assessed from satellite based imaging, and possible sometimes reports from other vessels. I do not know if this vessel is equipped with an an emometer,which would give an accurate reading of true and apparent wind speed and direction; I assume she was not. I find it somewhat strange that ships do not apparently carry such equipment that would remove the frequent criticism by charterers’ of weather conditions reported by the vessel.
仲裁员在第25段裁决理由中认为，合同第122条允许航海日志和气导公司的数据之间的一致性差异被提交仲裁，所以可以裁定这个问题。如上面评论过没有准确的天气记录设备。尽管如此，仲裁员更倾向认为，在甲板日志中的条目显示一些但不一定需要独立源数据的完全佐证的情况下，采用船长和船员的现场观察结果，而不是基于空间观察的分析。然而，在这种情况下，来自船舶的天气报告使得不能应用速度保证。仲裁员接受承租人的观点，即在北行航段开始时，船舶必须遇到第29条和第122条所包含的好天气的情况，比船上报告的天气情况更平缓的天气情况。因此，仲裁员将采用基于气导公司的计算方法。
25.Clause 122 allows a consistent discrepancy between the deck logs and independent source data to be referred to arbitration, so I can determine this issue. I have commented above about the absence of accurate weather recording equipment. Despite this, my preference is, where the entries in the deck logs show some but not necessarily total corroboration with independent source data,to adopt the observations made by the Master and ships’ officers on the spot,rather than analyses based on observations from space. However, in this case the weather reports from the vessel are such as to make it impossible to apply the speed warranty. I accept the Charterers contention that at the start of the northbound leg the vessel must have encountered calmer conditions falling within the qualifications contained in clauses 29 and 122 than those that were reported by the vessel. I will therefore adopt their approach based on independent source data.
这个案中说明了一个很重要的问题，如果船长在明显是好天气的情况下仍然虚报的话，那么很可能被认定整个航次所有的航海日志记录都作假，从而不被仲裁员所接受。如果被仲裁员认为诚信有问题，那么接下来很大程度上将作出不利的解释。因此，如果在实践中，如果确实是好天气，船长切不可自作主张，在航海日志中都记录为坏天气。
二、The “Hebei Rainbow”案
在该案中，出租人将该轮航次期租给承租人。在Passing Cape Passero交船后，该轮从欧洲空放巴西，到巴西的Septiba装载了一票铁矿回中国。承租人安排了气导，气导报告显示该轮空载航次有26.2小时时间损失，重油多耗52.4吨；重载航次225.2小时（平均航速只有9.6节，合同航速为约12.5节），多耗重油160.5吨。承租人因此索赔约45万美元。但承租人付租金付冒了，双方未能和解，承租人指定律师提起仲裁，索赔约19万美元。
合同格式是NYPE46，其中前言部分的第4－10行中的船舶描述条款被删，船舶描述条款中只是提到船舶在4级风3级浪没有逆流的情况航速和油耗应达到多少，没有出租人保证整个租期内达到合同航速和油耗的约定，例如"throughout the currency of this charterparty" 或者"during the currency of this charterparty"。
合同中对气导条款有如下约定：In case of discrepancy between deck log and Ocean Routes' report then evidence should be taken both from the Ocean Route report and the deck log。
船长记录的航海日志中整个重载和空载航次没有一天好天气，风力最小5级。双方同意共同委请英国气象局（the Met Office)对航程气象进行分析并同意其报告对双方是binding的。承租人委请了专家根据The Met Office的报告对船舶航速和油耗进行了测算，将索赔金额降为10万美元。出租人进行了抗辩并在仲裁的后半阶段提出了合同中没有包含船东对航速和油耗的保证（warranty）或连续保证（continuing warranty），承租人索赔不能成立，出租人因此反诉约19万美元。
仲裁员最终裁定合同中没有“continuing warranty”，而租家又未提出船东未尽到维护保养的义务（did not advance any alternative case on the failure to maintain），因此最终裁定判承租人败诉并支持了出租人的反诉，承租人应赔付出租人US$191,452.34以及利息和法律费用。
仲裁员裁决的部分理由如下：
We have carefully considered the parties’ arguments and the authorities relied on. The position was by no means clear.However, it appears that, where a vessel is fixed on terms which include lines 9-10 of the NYPE judicial opinion is divided as to whether the speed and consumption figures constitute as at (i) the date of the fixture or (ii) the delivery of the vessel into the charterparty.
The charterparty in question in this case did not contain lines 9-10 because they had been expressly deleted and replaced by clause 29. That clause is headed “Vessel’s Description” and sets out the vessel’s capabilities. It does not include any words such as “through out the currency of this charterparty” or “during the currency of this charterparty”which would have suggested that the vessel’s description as set out in the clause was to be maintained throughtout the charterparty period.
In the light of the above we have concluded that there was no continuing warranty as to the vessel’s performance contained in the charterparty. The Charterers did not advance any alternative case on the failure to maintain and therefore their claim for under-performance/over-consumptiondoes not succeed. Moreover, it follows that the Owners are entitled to be paidby the Charterers the sum of usd191,452.34 that has (in the light of ourfindings) been wrongfully deducted. We have awarded interest at a commercial rate on that sum from the customary one month after redelivery. In line withthe ususal rule that costs follow the event, we have awarded the Owners their costs, together with the costs of our Award. We have reserved jurisdiction to deal with the quantum of the costs in the event they cannot be agreed.
其实在本案中，承租人的律师犯了明显的错误，没有估计到出租人后面提出的“continuing warranty”，持续性保证的重要性，也没有设法证明船舶在订约或交船时是否达到合同航速以及船舶机器是否有问题、船东是否尽维修保养的义务（maintenance）等。
因此在碰到这类情况下，作为承租人，笔者认可可以要求出租人披露前一航次的航海日志和轮机日志以及所涉及争议航次的航海日志及轮机日志，从多方面查核船舶是否存在缺陷，或者不足。如果能举证在交船的时候确实存在问题，那么结果将不一样。
作为精明的承租人，一定要在合同条款中写明出租人应保证船舶在整个租期内都能达到合同约定的航次（Owners warrant that the vessel shall be capableof complying with the speed and consumption as stated herein throughout the currency of this charterparty），并争取气导报告是最终的对双方都有约束力的。(The evaluation of weather and the vessel's performance by the weather routing company appointed by charterers shall be binding on both parties)。同时，在好天气的描述中最好只包括4级风3级浪，不加入可能引起争议的no negative influence of swell and adverse current,更不能接受含有Nocurrent等措辞的条款。而作为出租人时，则相反。
三、The “Lipa”案
本案出租人在1993年9月8日与承租人以Baltime格式签订的合同。Lipa轮在1993年9月8日至12日之间交付的，最初的租船合同期限为3至6个月，但是它曾多次延期，船最终于1998年12月29日还船。
有关本案中承租人所依赖的燃油消耗的措辞如下：
speed/consumption in good weather/calm sea, wind not exceeding Beaufort scale 4, on even keel
-about 11 knots on about 14 mt IFO(180 cst) + about 1.5 mt Gasoil.
-about 12 knots on about 17.5 mt IFO(180 cst) + about 1.5 mt Gasoil
-about 14 knots on about 21 mt IFO(180 cst) + about 1.5 mt Gasoil
-about 16 knots on about 33 mt IFO(180 cst) + about 1.5 mt Gasoil
In case carrying reefer containers Gasoil consumption increases to about 2.1 mt.
Port consumption:
-working about 2.4 mt Gasoil
-idle about 1.5 mt Gasoil
…..
…..
All details about-all details given in good faith but without guarantee.
需要注意的是，第26条条款中包含了船舶各方面的许多规定，但是只有那些关于速度和油耗的内容才包含“about”的措辞。
在第26条最后面结束的时候，有一个重要的段落，“All details about-all detailsgiven in good faith but without guarantee”。
即所有细节都是大约的-所有细节都是善意真诚地给出，但不保证。这是出租人的观点，因为这些措辞不能保证在第26条中列出的事项，或至少没有对船舶的燃油消耗给予保证。
仲裁员不接受这一论点。他们的理由是必须对第26条的结束语给出一个含义。该条不仅适用于燃油消耗，而且适用于该条款中的所有其他项目。
The arbitrators did not accept this contention. They proceeded on the basis that a meaning had to be given to the closing words of cl. 26 which applied not only to the consumption of fuel but to all other items in the clause as well.
仲裁员认为，他们并不相信这些文字将第26条中的所有承诺都删除了，例如，如果船舶没有配备船艏推进器或者龙门起重机只能起吊5吨，那么情况会是怎样。因此仲裁员裁定，虽然“无保证”一词阻止了出租人的绝对保证，但他们并没有将出租人的所有义务移除，如果这么做会违背常识和商业有效性。 然后，仲裁员试图说出一些含义，并裁定：“就燃油消耗保证而言，应该考虑给他们提供额外的余量，引入about所需给予的余量'”。因此他们认为，他们会允许百分之五。但由于有“不保证”一词，因此应给予为百分之十的燃油消耗的富余量。
出租人的代表律师认为，仲裁员的这种推理与权威不一致，并且没有对合同第26条的最后几个字给出适当的效果。他辩称，“不保证”一语的效果是，它们规定，它们适用的条款不是保证的。此外，与“真诚地提供所有细节”一词相结合的措词的效果是，在不存在不诚实行为的情况下不能以此为依据。但这在本案中并未涉及。
商事法院的Adnrew Smith法官认为尽管仲裁员有理由，但他认为出租人代表律师的论点的第一阶段无疑是正确的。很明显，如果并且就租船合同中的条款而言，以“不担保”的字样来限定，则该条款不是保证。如果需要权威来支持这一点，可以参阅JapyFreres v.Sutherland（1921）26 Com.CAS.227案，以及Continental Pacific Shipping Ltd.v. Deemand Shipping Co. Ltd. [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep.404案。Adnrew Smith法官认为在这种情况下更困难的问题是第26条最后的规定是否适用于租船合约方关于燃油消耗的规定（或更确切地说，关于船舶不在港口时的消耗）。
I consider, despite the reasoning of the arbitrators, that the first stage of Mr.Smith's argument is undoubtedly correct. It is clear that if and in so far as aprovision in the charter-party is qualified by the words "without guarantee" the provision is not a warranty. If authority be needed to support this, it is found in Japy Freres v. Sutherland, (1921) 26 Com. Cas.227, and in Continental Pacific Shipping Ltd. v. Deemand Shipping Co. Ltd.,[1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 404.The more difficult question in this case is whether the qualification at the end of cl. 26 applies to the provisions in the charter-party about consumption (or more precisely about consumption when the vessel was not in port).
出租人的代表律师的主要意见是，这些文字限定了船舶在合同第26条中列出的所有细节。对这种解释可能提出的反对意见是，“all detailsabout”的措辞不适用于该条款的所有规定，例如“配备电传”和“装备了船艏推进器装置”的规定。承租人的代表律师主张，最后一段中的“details”一词在“all details about”的短语中使用时指的是不同的规定，并且当用于“all details given in goodfaith but without guarantee”,诚实但不保证地给予；这表明“不保证”一词并不涉及整个第26条。出租人的代表律师称，该条款的最后一句话适用于所有条款，因为它们是恰当的：它并不遵循，因为“details”不容易被“about”这个词限定，它是不容易接受剩余的资格。
Adnrew Smith法官认为在他提出承租人代表律师的提议之前，他应该提一下，在他看来，对于最后一段的第三种可能的解释是在第26条中，有可能将这些词语解释为规定，在详细说明为“about”的情况下，该船舶的部分描述是善意提供的，但没有保证。这当然意味着燃油消耗条款是在这个基础上给出的。这种解释可以解释为什么“about”一词出现在该条款最后一段的引号中，唯一的另一种解释表明，合同起草人是（非特征地）意识到不合语法的用法。这也是对该条款的解释，与出租人代表律师认为的解释不同，这意味着在关于速度和燃油消耗的规定中反复使用“about”一词并不是过剩的。
Adnrew Smith法官认为不是绝对有必要就三种解释中的哪一种更受欢迎发表意见。但是，在他看来，如他已经指出了第26条的最后一段。解释了对该段中关于该船舶的详细资料的效果，该资料由“about”一词限定。这种解释实现了该条款的最后一段，并给出了一个狭窄的效果，可以满足Roskill勋爵所表达的内容，并且他认为不能被认为是非商业性的。Adnrew Smith法官认为他知道，他应该谨慎解释该条款的最后一段，因为规定“about”具有非常规意义。然而，他的首选解释并不是他所希望的一个部分，即关于“about”这个词被剥夺了它对规定数字提供保证的通常含义。该段末尾的资格被解释为增加一个进一步的规定，即“about”的估计仅具有真诚陈述的地位。
最终，基于所给出的理由，AdnrewSmith法官得出结论认为，就这一上诉提出的法律问题的答案是，租船合约方不包含关于船舶燃油消耗的保证。
It is therefore not strictly necessary for me to express a view as to which of the three interpretations is to be preferred. However, it seems to me for the reasons that I have already indicated the last paragraph of cl. 26 explains the effect to be given to particulars about the vessel in the paragraph which are qualified by the word "about". This interpretation gives effect to the last paragraph ofthe clause, and also gives it a narrow effect that meets the concerns expressedby Lord Roskill, and cannot, in my view, be said to be uncommercial. I am aware that I should be cautious of interpreting the last paragraph of the clause asproviding that "about" has been given a meaning which is not the ordinary meaning. However it is no part of my preferred interpretation that the word about is stripped of its usual meaning of affording a margin to the stipulated figures. The qualification at the end of the paragraph is to be interpreted as adding a further stipulation, that the "about" estimations have the status only of bona fide representations.
I therefore conclude that answer to the point of law raised on this appeal is that the charter-party does not contain a warranty about the vessel's rate of fuel consumption.
本案的详细情况在之前文章有说过；在条款最后加了WOG，这个措辞构成了对所有条款不保证,仅要求作出陈述时真诚地相信（genuinely believe）即可,时候承租人想反过来去举证出租人存在恶意，将非常非常困难。因此作为严谨的承租人，应该拒绝接受此类措辞，WOG,GIVEN IN GOOD FAITH, FOR REFERENCE ONLY。而作为承租人应该相反，当然这是一个博弈的过程。
笔者近期也碰到在航速油耗描述后加上“for reference only”的争议，承租人认为航速油耗是保证的，出租人认为加了for reference only就构成不保证。承租人于是扣下了所有航次的航速索赔，出租人协会律师这回很果断地给承租人发了如下仲裁通知，笔者完全认同。
Our Members have made every effort to resolve this matter amicably but there has been no positive response from Charterers in this regard and our Members therefore now see no alternativebut to refer this dispute to arbitration under the charterparty dated 6 March2017 between the parties.
As you are aware, as per clauses 17 and 84 of the charterparty, the partieshave agreed that the English law and LMAA rules would apply to any disputesunder the charterparty. According to the LMAA rules, the parties are free to agree in writing to vary the provisions of the clause in order to providefor the appointment of a sole arbitrator. We would therefore be grateful if you would advise whether Charterers would be prepared to vary the terms of the Charterparty in this way.
Upon Charterers' confirmationin writing of their agreement to same, we will revert with the names of our Members' proposals as to sole arbitrator.
We look forward to hearing from Charterers on the above as soon as possible.
四、“Under”的神奇解释
通常情况下，对于好天气的描述，其中风浪方面均为：UPTO BEAUFORT FORCE 4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3，这种类似的，即风最大或不超过4级，涌浪最大或不超过3级。但是也有合同对于风浪的描述为：WINDS UNDER BEAUFORT FORCE 4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3。涉及的是一条好望角型船，租约以NYPE46格式。律师发了如下电邮给仲裁员，要求就“WINDS UNDER BEAUFORT FORCE 4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3”给予解释。
This message has beenjointly prepared by ‘Owners’ XXX and ‘Charterers’ XXX of the subject vessel. It is being sent to you on behalf of both Owners and Charterers.
This dispute between Owners and Charterers on the subject vessel is in respect of the correct interpretation of a sentence in one clause under the relevant CP. Both sides agreed that we would seek your interpretation on this sentence and would take your opinion as binding between us. Both sides further agreed to share your fees on a 50/50 basis irrespective of your view on the interpretation would favor which party.
The relevant wording of the C/P clause and each party’s opinion are set out below. Both Owners and Charterers would be grateful for your opinion at your earliest convenience.Both parties also agree not to serve any submission in this regard.
Both parties want to agree as much as they can in order not to bother you. They would be extremely grateful if you could answer the following question.
As you may appreciate,by a C/P on basis of amended NYPE 1946 together with rider clauses dated 24August 2010, Owners chartered a capsize vessel “XXX” to Charterers for a timecharter trip for carriage iron ore from Hamburg via Pointe Noire, Canada to Rizhao, China.
The relevant clause under the C/P reads:
“SPEED AND CONSUMPTION ARE GIVEN BASIS CLEAN BOTTOM, IT IS ALWAYS APPLICABLE FROM SEA BUOY TO SEA BUOY AND IN GOOD WEATHER CONDITION I.E. IN WINDS UNDER BEAUFORT FORCE4 AND DOUGLAS SEASTATE 3 AND BASIS NO ADVERSE CURRENTS AND NO NEGATIVE INFLUENCE OF SWELL.
BALLAST:ABT 14.50 KN ON ABT 44.0 MT IFO/RMG380 - ISO8217:2005(E) +NO MDO AT SEA
LADEN:ABT 13.00 KN ON ABT 44.0 MT IFO/RMG380 - ISO8217:2005(E) +NO MDO AT SEA
PORT CONSUMPTION: ABT 2.5 MT IFO + ABT 0.5 MT MDO (ISO8217:2005(E) DMB)
THE VESSEL BURNS EXTRA MDO OR IFO WHEN MANOUEVERING IN SHALLOW / NARROW WATERS,ENTERING / LEAVING PORTS / CANALS, BALLASTING /DEBALLASTING CONDUCTING BALLAST WASTER EXCHANGE AND PUMPING OUT BILGE WATER DURING LADEN VOYAGE ETC.
ABVALL FIGURES ARE ABOUT”
Please kindly note that “under” is used before “Beaufort Force 4”.
Owners’ opinion
The intention of the parties must be ascertained objectively. What is relevant is not what the parties or still less one of the parties actually intended, but the intention which reasonable people would have had if placed in the situation of the parties. Except to the extent described below, the intention of the parties is to be ascertained exclusively from the words of the contract itself as used in their context and external evidence of that intention is inadmissible. Words should be given their natural, plain and ordinary meaning unless that would result in absurdity. In latest Longman Dictionary, “under” means “below or less than a particular number,amount, age, or price etc”. In the instant case, the plain meaning of the words in the clause mean that Good Weather Day should be such days where wind was below Beaufort Force 4 and sea state was below Douglas Sea State 3(i.e. BF3 or below / DSS2 or below), and there was no adverse currents and no negative influence of swell. A term will not be implied into a Charterparty unless it is necessary to do so in order to give business efficacy to the transaction. The above-mentioned clause itself works well. There is no need toinput any other word into the clause
Charterers’ opinion
It is an established market practice that good weather means “Beaufort Force 4, Douglas Sea State 3". The Charterparty was negotiated by both sides' professionals who were well familiar with such market practice. From both the market practice and use of language perspectives, the phase "WINDS UNDER BEAUFORT FORCE 4 AND DOUGLAS SEA STATE 3" means "winds of or under Beaufort Force 4 and Douglas SeaState 3. Only this interpretation would make commercial sense and would reflect the real intention of the parties. The effect is that if on a particular datethe weather is ‘Beaufort Force 4 and Douglas Sea state 3” this date would fall under the description ‘winds under Beaufort Force 4 AND Douglas Sea State 3’. This date would therefore be a good weather day.
Would you please award which opinion of the above is correct; if none is correct, would you please award what wind and sea state constitute good weather within the meaning of the above quoted clause. Meanwhile, would you please award below how much high swell can be said to have no negative influence on sailing of the vessel.
仲裁员认为他同意承租人的意见，当“好天气”一词出现时，通常意味着包括Beaufort Wind Scale 4和Douglas Sea State 3在内。然而，它对于租船合同明确说明合同中要确定好天气的程度，要么确定要么改变传统的解释。
在本案中，客观地理解速度和消费条款中使用的措辞，仲裁员得出结论认为，各方打算修改传统定义，以使蒲氏4级风和道格拉斯3级浪不被视为好天气。必须考虑到“在......之下”这个词的存在，仲裁员看不出任何其他解释这一条款的方式，而不是接受这种情况下的好天气被定义为包括3级风和2级浪。
对于涌浪，到什么程度没有负面影响，这当然取决于当时船舶的涌浪的方向。来自梁前方的涌浪会产生一些负面影响，而直接向前涌浪会有更多的负面影响;下面的涌浪将没有。涌浪越短越深，效果越好。
使用Douglas Swell波作为衡量标准，负面影响通常被认为是从“中等”高度和“平均”周期（长度）开始的。道格拉斯尺度没有更详细地定义这些术语，但世界气象组织（WMO）涌浪波图给出的中等高度为2-4米，平均长度为100-200米。根据WMO尺度进行插值，仲裁员的观点是，就数字而言，负面效应将会出现，直接来自前方约3米高，150米长的涌浪。
当事人各方都提到了“良好的天气日”。仲裁员认为现在应该提到，在对船舶性能作出结论时，将以The Didymi 和Gas Enterprise案中所阐明的原则为指导，评估船舶在实际良好天气期间的表现。如果意见书允许就这些时期的时间和持续时间形成观点，仲裁员不会同意基于“良好天气日”的评估，而气象服务在他们的报告中经常依赖这些评估，这些评估认为任何时期12小时以上的好天气是24小时的全天，随之而来的是实际表现的扭曲。
I have considered the points made in the joint message of 3rd June.
1.Speed and consumption
I agree with the Charterers that when the expression “good weather” appears in isolation,it is normally taken to mean up to and including Beaufort Wind Scale force 4 and Douglas Sea State3. It is, however, open to the parties to a charter to explicitly state how good weather is to be defined in the contract, either confirming or altering the conventional interpretation.
In the present case, on an objective reading of the words used in the speed and consumption clause, I conclude that the parties intended to modify the conventional definition so that Beaufort force 4 and Douglas Sea State3 were not to be considered good weather. The presence of the word “under” must be taken into account and I can see no other way of construing this clause than to accept that good weather in this instance is to be defined as up to and including Beaufort 3 and Sea Scale 2.
2.Swell
Asto up to what point swell has no negative influence, this will of course depend on the direction of the swell relative to that of the vessel at the time inquestion. Swell coming from an angle forward of the beam will have some negative effect, while swell from directly ahead will have more; a following swell will have none. The shorter and deeperthe swell, the more effect.
Using Douglas Swell waves as the measure, negative effect is generally accepted to begin at “moderate” height and “average” period (length). The Douglas scale does not define these terms in any more detail, but the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Swell Waves chart gives moderate height as 2-4 metres and average length as 100-200 metres. Interpolating the WMO scale, my view is that,in terms of figures, negative effect would be present with swells about 3 metres high and 150 metres in length coming from directly ahead.
3.A general comment
My impression (apologies if wrong) is that this case concerns the vessel’s performance. I note that in their submission the message of 3rd June the parties refer to a ”good weather day”. I should mention now that inreaching a conclusion as to the vessel’s performance, I shall be guided by the principle set out in The Didymi and Gas Enterprise decisions, that a ship’s performance is to be evaluated during actual periods of good weather. If the submissions allow a view to be formed as to the timing and duration of such periods, I shall not be sympathetic to evaluations based on “good weather days”, so often relied upon by weather services in their reports, which deem any period of good weather of more than 12 hours to be afull day of 24 hours, with the attendant distortion of actual performance.
I trust that this is helpful.
此外在仲裁员所提到的The “Didymi”[1988]2 Llody’s Rep.108案中，在合同第30条中有如下描述：
(4) Similarly if it is found thatthe vessel has maintained as an average…a better speed and/or consumption…owners shall be indemnified by way of increase of hire, such increase to be calculated in the same way as the reduction provided in the preceding sentence…
上诉院的法官们一致认为，因船舶有更好的履约表现，出租人有权利获得更高的租金。
-Held, by C.A. (Dillon, Nourseand Bingham, L.JJ.), that (1) the provision in issue related to a subsidiary and non-essential question of how a contractual liability to make payment according to a specified objective standard was to be quantified; the substantial provision in sub-cl. (4) was that the "Owners shall be indemnified by way of increase of hire such increase to be calculated"; the procedure for calculation was a matter of machinery and there was a binding obligation to which effect could be given as a matter of contract
通过对这些案例，可以看出合同中的任何措辞都有特定的意义，发现不了问题，只能自己买单。租约谈判永远是不断博弈的过程，水平高低，直接反映在合同条款上，而租船合同的好坏直接关系到航次的是否能顺利执行的问题，因此务必引起重视。
（后续，这些观点，很多年前笔者已经知道，但一直很少拿来用，有些是最后的救命稻草。但留着也没用，因此分享给大家，看过本文的，回头切记，去看看租船合同是如何规定的。2018.06.09 于香港）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
