2018-07-05
577 Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款
Delay due to other third parties
由于其它第三方造成的延迟
2.273 This also will be excused, provided it has not been caused or contributed to by the relevant cargo interest. In Lyle Shipping Co Ltd v. Corporation of Cardiff a charterparty provided for customary despatch. By custom of the port of discharge, cargo was discharged into railway wagons. Any wagons could be used, but it was normal for consignees to contract with one railway company for their supply. Owing to a press of work, however, the railway company concerned failed to supply sufficient wagons and discharge was delayed. Nevertheless, both Bigham J and the Court of Appeal ruled that the consignees were not liable to pay damages for the detention of the ship.
2.273只要延误不是有关货方所造成或可归咎于他的原因，他也可以被免除这一责任。在 Lyle Shipping Co Ltd v. Corporation of Cardiff—案中，租船合同规定的是按习惯速遣。按照卸货港的习惯，货物是卸到铁路货车上的。可以使用任一节货车皮，但通常是收货人得与铁路公司签订供应合同。然而，由于太忙，铁路公司未能提供足够的车皮，从而导致卸货延迟。尽管如此，一审Bingham法官以及上诉法院均判决收货人都没有责任支付船舶这一滞期延迟损失。
2.274 In Akties Glittre v. Gabriel, Wade & English, a shortage of labour at the loading port was similarly excused.
2.274 同样，在Akties Glittre v. Gabriel，Wade & English—案中，由于在装货港缺乏装卸工人而造成的延迟也同样是被判定免责。
Weather and other natural phenomena
天气和其他的自然现象
2.275 The leading case on this aspect is Carlton Steamship Co Ltd v. Castle Mail Packets Co Ltd, a decision of the House of Lords. In that case the difficulty encountered concerned the depth of water at the loading berth during neap tides. The Carlton, the vessel concerned, was ordered to load a cargo at Senhouse Dock, Maryport, ‘‘always afloat’’ with customary laytime. Prior to arrival, the Carlton bunkered, increasing her arrival draught aft. After about a fifth of her cargo was loaded, it became apparent that the remainder would not be able to be loaded before the onset of neap tides and that at low water neaps she would not be ‘‘always afloat’’. The Carlton therefore sailed but, by agreement between the parties, returned a fortnight or so later to complete loading, which she did during the next spring tides. The question was who was responsible for the delay and additional expenses incurred.
2.275这方面的典型案例是上议院判决的Carlton Steamship Co Ltd v. Castle Mail Packets Co Ltd案。该案争议的焦点就是装货泊位在低潮时的水深问题。该案所涉及的Carlton轮被指示前往Maryport港Senhouse码头装货，规定以习惯性装卸时间条款并且‘始终处于漂浮状态’。在抵达之前，Carlton轮由于添加了燃油导致船尾吃水增加。在大约装了1/5的货物后，可以明显看出，在小潮来临前剩余的货是无法再装了，而且，在小潮的最低水位时，该轮不可能“始终保持漂浮着”。所以，双方当事人商定让Carlton轮先开出去，等过2周或更晚些时候在下一个大潮期间再返回将货物装完。问题是应该由谁来承担这一延迟以及由此而发生的费用呢？
2.276 It was unsuccessfully argued on behalf of the shipowner that the stipulation ‘‘always afloat’’ should be ignored in determining what was a reasonable time. Rejecting this argument, Lord Herschell said:
It is admitted, my Lords, that the vessel could not by any human being have been loaded, whatever the diligence employed, an hour sooner than she was loaded, if she was to be loaded always afloat. Under these circumstances it seems to me impossible to hold that where the obligation has been performed as soon as it could, owing to the natural circumstances of the port, the person performing it has taken more than a reasonable time to do so.
In a similar vein, Lord Macnaghten said:
I cannot understand how it can be unreasonable when it is the period required by the character of the harbour, the laws of nature, and the regular recurrence of spring tides.
2.276 代表船东一方（不成功地）辩称说：在确定什么才算合理的时间时不应考虑‘始终漂浮’这一规定。Herschell勋爵否决这一论点：
尊敬的法官大人，我认为，如果要求船舶始终处于漂浮状态装货的话，无论怎样尽职尽力，任何人也不可能提前1个小时完成装货作业的。在这种情况下，依我之见，似乎不可能判定：在履约方在已经尽其所能履行义务的情况下，由于该港自然条件的原因，装货所使用的时间是超出合理时间的。
同样的原理，Macnaghten勋爵也认为（即该损失应由船东承担）：
我无法理解，由港口特点、自然法则以及周而复始的大潮所决定的期限怎么能是不合理的呢！
2.277 In Latus, Linsley & Co v. J H Douglas & Co and in Aktieselskabet Dampskibs Cleveland v. Horsley, Smith & Co Ltd, loading was impeded by ice, which was held to be one of the circumstances to be taken into account in determining whether a reasonable time to load had been exceeded.
2.277在 Latus，Linsley & Co v. J H Douglas & Co案和 Aktieselskabet Dampskibs Cleveland v. Horsley，Smith & Co Ltd案，装货作业因冰冻受到拖延，这一情况被判定为是确定装货作业是否超出了合理期限所考虑的情况之一。
2.278 Whilst the sentiments expressed in the Carlton Steamship case clearly apply to such surface phenomena as tides and ice, it is submitted they go beyond and apply to all natural phenomena, including weather. It should be noted, however, that for it to be excusable, the phenomenon must be the cause of the delay.
2.278 在Carlton Steamship一案，所提出的观点明确地适用于诸如潮汐以及冰冻之类的自然现象，大家一致认为这一范围还可以扩大和适用于所有的自然现象，其中也包括天气的影响。不过，值得一提的是，要想得到免责，只有这种自然现象是造成延迟的必然原因时才可以。
《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）
