2018-09-26
1354 
【摘要】在期租合约下，交还船的时候，船东租家往往都会安排量油检验，很多时候，船方计算的数据与检验员所计算的数据并不一致，那么这些检验员所出具的报告是否是最终并且有约束力的？本文通过一些案例来谈谈这方面的问题。
【关键词】检验员、量油、终局、索赔
近期笔者把闲时都花在了书籍印刷上，无论如何，书籍永远都是最便宜的；十几年前的教科书依然摆放在桌前，而当年喝下肚子的青岛烟台等啤酒早已混入大海，了无踪迹。对于从事航运的从业者而言，一吨油钱就足以买好几十本专业书籍；只是非常遗憾的是，我们并不热衷于读书，宁愿把大把时间及金钱花在吃喝玩乐上，只是物质上的富足有时候并不能弥补精神上的荒芜。
几天前和一友人聊天，打趣道，写东西的人都有点清高，不为钱、权，但会因五斗米折腰。在这个大环境中，还肯牺牲自己时间来写东西的，真的很少，应该珍惜。在这个知识需要付费的年代，笔者曾经帮好多人解答问题，但这这和义务无关。前段时间，曾经因为某篇文章涉及到福州某家公司的利益，结果导致几个人围攻，恶意中伤，包括那位笔者曾经给予电子版《TimeCharters》的人，这件事也让笔者沉沦了一段时间。如果胡作非为而说不得，那简直比黑社会还黑，不利于行业发展，这也完全有违笔者花大量心思整理这些的初衷；在前行过程中必然会有阵痛，希望痛过之后，都能勇敢站起来，朝着更加专业的路上继续走下去。该事件在发了仲裁通知后，福州某家公司全额退款结案，也算是失望之余唯一的安慰。
多看书多学习，真的可以知道的比别人多，比别人专业；能为公司赚取更多的利润，最大限度地维护公司的利益。每天学一点，日积月累，一年两年不够的话，十年之后，必然会感觉到自己的与众不同。现在回到本文的重点，在期租合同下在交还船的时候，通常情况下，交船的时候会由船东推荐，还船的时候由租家推荐，共同委托第三方的检验人员进行量油检验，核定船上的交还船油量。很多时候，船方计算的数据和检验人员所计算的数据并不一致，那么这些检验人员所出具的报告是否是最终的并且有约束力？本文先从一实务中出现的争议说起，然后结合一些先例，来说说这方面的内容。
某船东和租家以修改过的NYPE46带有附加条款的格式为J轮签订了一份航次期租合同，DLOSP马来西亚的Samalaju 交船，还船为DLOSP一个南韩的安全港口。该轮于2018年7月25日的1200LT(0400GMT)交船，交船油量为HSFO321.787吨，MGO 47.070吨。J轮于7月26日的0525LT抵达马来西亚的装货港Labuan，于8月2日的1200LT装完货开航，前往卸港南韩的Pohang港。J轮于8月10日的0600LT(8月9日2100GMT)抵达卸港，最终J轮于2018年8月15日的1645LT(0745GMT)下引水还船，在卸港期间，租家安排补重油200吨，并安排了还船量油检验。
争议出现在还船重油的油量计算上，按船方计算，还船油量应为HSFO326.03吨，但租家安排的检验人认为计算结果为371.488吨，差异约45吨。船方提出抗议，但检验人员无视船方抗议，出具了一份显示还船油数为HSFO371.488吨，MDO 86.367吨的还船检验报告。船长及轮机长对此提出强烈抗议，并拒绝在检验报告上签字。
合同中关于船舶描述如下：
MV JXXXX
BLT YEAR: 2012
DWT/DRAFT: SUMMER 35044.6 MT/10.27 M
FLAG/CLASS : CHINA/CCS
TYPE: BULK CARRIER
HO/HA: 5 HO/5 HA
GRT/NRT: 22475/11913MT
GEAR: 30MT X 4 SETS (NO GRAB)
LOA/BREATH MLD: 179.88M/28.80M DEPTH MOULDED: 14.60 M HATCH COVER: FOLDING TYPE
DIMENSION AND CAPACITY OF CARGO HOLD:
NO.1: HATCH 13.6 M X 15.4 M
NO.2-5: HATCH 20 M X 20 M
HOLD NO.1 / 6752.5 CBM;
HOLD NO.2 / 9982.1 CBM;
HOLD NO.3 / 9994.1 CBM;
HOLD NO.4 / 9993.7 CBM;
HOLD NO.5 / 8926.5 CBM;
CAPACITY 45648.9 CBM
-ABT 13.0 KN ON ABOUT 19.5 MT IFO 380 CST (BALLAST) MGO 0.1MT
-ABT 12 KN ON ABOUT 20.5 MT IFO 380 CST (LADEN) MGO 0.1MT
ECO WOG
ABT 11.5 KN ON ABT 15.5MT (B) MGO 0.1MT
ABT 10 KN ON ABT 16 MT (L) MGO 0.1MT
DAILY PORT CONSUMPTION ABOUT 2.3 MT IFO 380CST + 0.1 MT MGO FOR IDLE. ABOUT 3.6 MT/DAY IFO 380CST + 0.1 MT MGO FOR WORKING.
关于争议部分，据船长报告，J轮平时量油都是按照油液的实际高度来计算，起租时也是按照油液实际高度技术的，是正确、准确的。J轮四个主要的重油舱分布在左右主甲板下，存在一个造船时即留下的实际问题，即本轮油舱测量管布置在靠船舷的两侧，船舶主甲板存在梁拱，主甲板的中部高两边低，大约有30CM的高度差。目前，J轮测量管实际垂直长度（即高度，下同）一号仓是415CM，二号仓是417CM，而舱容表上是一号仓445CM，二号仓443CM，是主甲板靠中部的高度。我们平时量油和本次起租量油，都是测量了测量管油液上部到测量口的空高，然后用测量管实际高度，即415CM和417CM进行相减，得出油液的实际高度，进行计算，这符合实际，计算准确。但韩国浦项量油时，量出油液上部到测量管口的空高后，租家坚持用仓容表上的高度，即445CM和443CM进行相减，得出的油液高度明显比实际高度多出约30CM，再通过仓容表计算出的油比实际多出45.418吨。结构示意图如下：
轮机长对此争议解释到，2018年8月15日在韩国浦项，韩国租家请来韩国的SURVEYOR上船来量油，J轮平时量油都是按照油液的实际高度来测量，而J轮测量管的实际高度一号仓是415CM，二号仓是417CM,舱容表上是一号仓445CM (油舱最高处的高度)，二号仓443CM(油舱最高处的高度),由于J轮一号油舱和二号油舱的测量管不是在油舱的最高处，结果他们来量油时量测量管的净空高度。但计算时根本不是按测量管处的实际高度减去净空高度，而是按照舱容表上的高度减去净空高度（舱容表的高度只是说明油舱的最大高度，以及满舱的整个舱容体积），显然这样就凭空多出近50吨的油，但韩国的SURVEYOR不听船上的解释，就出现油量的争执，而起租时在马来西亚LABUAN我们是按照测量管处的实际高度减去净空高度，当时的数据是FO:321.787DO:47.07，在浦项加了200吨重油45吨轻油，当时退租时根据我们的测量结果是FO：320.87，DO:88.4 而他们却量出FO:371.488 DO:86.367根据实际航程以及航速多出近50吨显然是不合理的。
类似这种争议，笔者在之前文章有介绍过。这种交还船量油，尤其是涉及到当事方的利益的时候，所委托的第三方检验人员可能并不能做到公平公正，因此在测量上多多少少会偏向于委托人。J轮的租家认为还船油量应该以检验人员的数据为准，因此认为船东倒欠租家尾款；但船东认为检验人员的测量数据有误，应该以船方的计算为准，认为租家仍欠尾款约13,000美元未付。J轮租家进而认为，检验人员所采用的数据有船级社认同，并拒绝接受船东建议，再次委托第三方公正人员做联合检验。J轮船东多次要求租家支付尾款无果，于是前来找笔者协助。
笔者草拟了如下电邮，（因字数超5万，内容删除）
J轮租家在收到此电邮后，要求船东提供船级社修改过的测量表。鉴于取得船级人批准修改过的测量变需要较长时间，浪费时间，于是继续草拟如下电邮：
（因字数超5万，内容删除）
J轮租家在9月21日通过经纪说，他们会退尾款，但不是全部。在之前文章已经介绍过London Arbitration 1/99 (1999) 503 LMLN 1(2)案，因此不在此重复。如果J轮租家认为检验人员计算是正确的，那么计算结果将是，J轮在航期间日平均耗油仅仅约14吨，该结果将是异常惊讶的，完全违背常识，船东也完全没有任何理由去过度描述其船舶，如果仅消耗14吨，完全没有任何理由及意义在合同中规范日耗油为20.5吨。
后续结果如何已经不再重要，如果不退款，就直接开始打官司，笔者认为J轮租家完全没有胜诉的可能，因为这是常识性问题。如果依据还船检验人员出具报告的数据，那么将得出荒谬的结果，而合同中并未约定，检验人员的数据为最终且有约束力的。合同中关于交还船检验的条款如下，只是说为了确定在交船和还船的时候，船舶状况和燃油数量，需由双方所接受的独立且胜任的检验人员在交船港和还船港进行交还船检验，交船检验为船东时间，还船检验为租家时间，费用平摊。
To ascertain vessel’s conditions and bunker quantity on delivery and redelivery,joint on-hire and off-hire survey to be carried at the port of delivery and redelivery respectively by an independent and competent surveyor acceptable to both owners and charterers. On-hire survey in owners’ time and off-hire survey in charterers’ time while cost to be equally shared.
该条款并未有类似的措辞Surveyor’s figures will be final and binding，因此J轮检验人员的数据并非是终局的，接下来通过几个先例来谈谈这方面的问题。
一、LondonArbitration 3/08 （2008）734LLMLN 3 案
在该案中，租约以Shellvoy 5格式，从埃及装载混合原油到印度的Sikka卸，在装完货的时候，船长签署了556,594.20桶的提单。承租人按合同第14条规定委托了独立的检验人员来确定船存油量，出租人也同意此委托。卸货发生在2005年5月3号到4号，3号1930接好油管，5日0054解掉，0124开航。在检验员的报告上，认定403桶为non-liquid(umpumpable)的，即固态不可泵的；3,503桶为liquid(pumpable),液态的可泵的。该报告船长签署，但加了如下批注：“The above-mentioned liquid cargo are considered non-liquid.”在该报告有如下备注：
“LIQUID OIL or FREE FLOWINGOIL is usually considered by the Industry as “Pumpable Cargo”.
NON LIQUID(Sediment/Sludge) are considered by the Industry as “Unpumpable Cargo” “.
在测量后，检验员发了如下通知：
“After discharge of the subject cargo: “Belayim Blend Crude Oil” our inspector observed the following points which could be detrimental to correct quantity ascertainment or where further investigation may be necessary.”
承租人依据检验人员的报告，及第14条的货物残留条款，从运费中扣除了少货的索赔额，141,940.80美元。该货物残留条款描述如下：
14. Cargo Retention Clause
If on completion of discharge any liquid cargo reachable by vessels fixed pumps of a pumpable nature remains on board (the presence andquantity of such cargo having been established, by application of the wedgeformula in respect of any tank the contents of which do not reach the forwardbulkhead, by an independent surveyor, (appointed by Charterers and paid jointlyby Owners and Charterers), Charterers shall have the right to deduct fromfreight an amount equal to the FOB loading port value of such cargo, cargoinsurance plus freight thereon; provided, however, that any action or lack ofaction hereunder shall be without prejudice to any other rights or obligationsof the Charterers, under this Charter or otherwise, and provided further thatif Owners are liable to any third party in respect of failure to discharge suchpumpable cargo, or any part thereof, Charterers shall indemnify Owners againstsuch liability up to the total amount deducted under this clause.”
出租人辩称，检验人员的报告没有做出从运费中扣除所需的调查结果，但他们只是为了第14条的目的承认有问题的船存原油被证明是液体。出租人继续争辩说，这些船存原油是固态的，不可泵出的，并且船舶所配备的设施无法够着，并且在船上有任何液体货物的情况下，它都限于固态存油中。出租人进一步争辩说，检验人员确定的数量可能归因于货物本身的性质。
承租人争辩说，检验人员的报告满足了第14条所要求的所有参数，该报告称他们可以扣除3,503桶船存燃油的CIF价值。
仲裁员认为货物残留条款与完善的英国法律规则背道而驰，即运费是神圣不可侵犯的。虽然租船合同中的措辞有所不同，但条款的一般商业目的是允许承租人永久扣减运费。由于检验人员的确定是最终的，承租人无需证明他们有权保留通过提出正式货物索赔而扣减的金额。
仲裁员认为第14条的基本要素是，如果独立验船师确定卸货完成后，船舶固定的泵可以到达的可泵送液体货物仍然在船上，那么这种确定有权让承租人从运费中扣除液体货物的CIF价值。由于该条款赋予承租人一项他们原本不会拥有的权利，承租人有责任将自己完全置于该条款措词的条款范围内，该条款必须严格解读。
Held , that cargo retention clauses represented a departure from the well-established rule of English lawthat freight was sacrosanct. Although wordings to be found in charterpartiesvaried somewhat, the general commercial purpose of the clauses was to allowcharterers to make a deduction from freight on a permanent basis. Charterersneed not prove their entitlement to retain the amount deducted by bringing aformal cargo claim, as the surveyor’s determination was final.
The essential ingredients of clause 14 were that providedan independent surveyor made a determination on completion of discharge thatliquid cargo of a pumpable nature reachable by the vessel’s fixed pumpsremained on board, then such determination entitled the charterers to deductthe CIF value of the liquid remains from freight. As the clause gave thecharterers a right which they would otherwise never had, it was incumbent uponthe charterers to bring themselves squarely within the provisions of thewording of the clause, which had to be read strictly.
最终仲裁员裁定，证据向法庭表明，该船在没有排放所有船存液体货物的情况下有过错，而不是货物本身存在问题。出租人负有责任去证明存在如此大量的船存货物不是船舶的过错，但出租人他们没有履行这种举证责任。然而，就数量而言，承租人并未向仲裁庭出示令人满意的证据，出租人应对超过检验人员认证的3,503桶液体船存货物的任何短缺负责。因此，承租人的反诉不再增加，即与从运费中扣除的数量完全相同。
Onthe whole, the evidence suggested to the tribunal that the ship was at fault innot discharging all of the liquid ROB, rather than there being a problem withthe cargo itself. The evidential burden was upon the owners to demonstrate thatthe presence of such a significant quantity of ROB was not the fault of the vesseland they did not discharge that burden. So far as quantities were concerned,however, the charterers did not demonstrate to the tribunal’s satisfaction thatthe owners were responsible for any shortage in excess of the 3,503 barrels ofliquid ROB certified by the surveyor. The charterer’s counterclaim thereforesucceeded to the extent of the value of the liquid ROB and no more, ie in theexact same amount as was deducted from freight.
鉴于该案的特定条款，仲裁员裁定承租人有权依据第14条的残留货物条款，从运费中作扣减检验人员所确定的短货价值。接下来来看看一个类似条款，但却被判检验人员报告没有约束力，不得从运费中扣减的判例。
二、Protank Shipping INC. v. Total TransportCorporation ( The “Protank Orinoco”) [1997] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 42案
在1995年4月30日，出租人将The “Protank Orinoco”租给承租人去执行一个从法国或西班牙的地中海港口装一到两等级的脏石油产品到美湾和加勒比海地区卸。最终承租人安排该轮到法国的Lavera和Taragona港装载汽油，于1994年的9月2日到6日装完货，于9月23日至24期间在Chevron卸下了在Taragona装载的货物，9月25日至27日期间在Houston卸下了在Lavera装载的货物。
在两个泊位卸完货后，都有一定量的油留在船上。雪佛龙和埃克森美孚分别任命SGS测量，他们是货物的接收人。其他测量员也参加了，如代表出租人的SabineSurveyors Inc.和3D Marine公司及代表承租人的保赔协会，General Maritime Corporation。
在Chevron卸货时，SGS和GeneralMaritime Corporation测量的船上剩余石油量为1,464桶；SabineSurveyors Inc.的测量，略为少些，为1,459.86桶。在Houston，所有测量员测量都得出船上剩余的2,127桶石油。虽然测量员因此而对数量达成了实质性的一致意见，但他们并未就石油的状况达成一致。SGS和GeneralMaritime Corporation认为该存油是液体，Sabine Surveyors Inc.认为它不可泵，为固态。
合同第8条，关于检验人员及残存货物条款的规定如下：
In the event that any cargo remains on board upon completion of discharge,charterers shall have the right to deduct from freight an amount equal to the FOB port of loading value of such cargo plus freight due with respect thereto,provided that the volume of cargo remaining on board is liquid and pumpable and reachable by vessel's pumps (or would have been liquid and pumpable and reachable's byvessel's pumps, but for the fault or negligence of the owners, master, vesselor her crew, including incorrect trim procedure) as determined by an independent surveyor whoseestimate shall be final and binding.
Any action or lack of action in accordance with this provision shall be withoutprejudice to any rights or obligations of the parties . . .
本条款基本上采用这些承租人使用的标准条款的形式。根据这一条款，承租人从运费中扣除了Houston港码头船上剩余的1,454和2,127桶石油的价值79,046.26美元。1996年9月6日，根据Langley法官先生的命令，出租人向承租人发出令状，要求支付这笔未付的运费余额。该令状是在巴拿马的，其中包括租船人。在规定的时间内未对服务作出确认，并于1996年11月14日对承租人作出违约判决。在宣誓书中解释的情况下，承租人迟迟未发送确认书。商事法庭的Thomas法官认为，承租人他们必须使此申请撤销默认输入的判决。Thomas法官认为承租人他们在错过时限方面的错误有点令人惊讶，但他认为他们允许输入违约判决的情况不会以任何方式对他们造成不利影响，申请被搁置的判决。因此，没有理由详细说明这些情况。
Thomas法官认为，争议可分为两个主要问题。
(1) Whether, for thepurposes of cl. L8 of the charter-party between the owners and the charterers,the SGS documents [at p. 99 of the hearing bundle or at p. 36 of the ExhibitACDM 2] constituted a "determination" or an "estimate" byan "independent surveyor" which would entitle the charterers to makea deduction from freight which would otherwise be payable to the owners?
(2) Whether, absenta "determination" or "estimate" within cl. L8 of thecharter-party, the charterers are entitled to deduct from freight which wouldotherwise be payable to the owners of any cargo remaining on board afterdischarge: (a) which would have been liquid, pumpable and reachable by thevessel's pumps but for the fault or negligence of the owners, master, vessel orher crew; or (b) which was in fact liquid, pumpable and reachable by thevessel's pumps.
Thomas法官认为，在The “Aries”案中已经确立，如果租船合同中没有列明，那么承租人必须支付剩余运费且不得扣减，除非承租人能将他们引入到合同第8条中，否则不会有抵销发生。
It was common groundbefore me that in consequence of the term of the charter-party which providedfor freight to be paid without deduction and the decision in The Aries, [1977]1 Lloyd's Rep. 334; [1977] 1 W.L.R. 185 the charterers were bound to pay thebalance of the freight unless they could bring themselves within cl. L8. Noquestion of set-off could arise.
承租人争辩称SGS发布的文件对各方具有约束力，作为独立验船师的估计或决定，并且依据这些文件有权对运费进行扣除。Thomas法官认为摆在面前的这两份文件摆，在本案的情况下，正如他将解释的那样，可以在此基础上判定承租人是否有权依赖这些文件从运费中扣除。如果是，出租人接受该诉讼将被驳回，因为该决定是最终的，对双方都有约束力，出租人将不会在主张运费。
即使这两份文件不是合同第8条的决定或估计的文件。然后承租人争辩说，他们仍然有权通过他们的断言（这是真诚的和合理的理由）来扣除运费，要么船上剩余的货物是液体和可泵送的，并且可以通过船舶的泵达到或者是船舶的泵可以是液体和可泵送的，但是由于出租人，船长或船员的过失或疏忽造成的。在Thomas法官看来，显然存在与货物状况有关的事实问题。然而，出租人争辩说，除非承租人可以依赖SGS的决定或估计，否则他们依据第18条的真正解释，无权从运费中扣除；出租人认为承租人不能依赖断言，他们只能扣除他们是否有独立测量师的估计或决定。因此，承租人必须就船上剩余的货物提出任何索赔借助独立的索赔来完成。
Thomas法官认为在承租人提出的两个论点中，有一些短期的解释问题不涉及任何潜在的事实争议。此外，根据第14A条作出的决定将不再需要就承租人是否为获得违约判决而妥善送达而进行任何进一步的聆讯。
关于SGS是否是合同第8条内所说的地理的检验人员，Thomas法官认为SGS是一个在全球范围内提供最高声誉的检查员和测量员的组织，这是一个共同点。 它们也是由货物收货人雪佛龙和埃克森美孚共同任命的，而不是由出租人和接收方共同指定。同样也是共同点，就像往常一样，他们参加了在卸货期间测量货物的情况，而且只有在对船上剩余的液体和可泵送货物提出问题时，其他验船师才参与其中。正是在这个基础上，承租人认为SGS在第8条的意义上显然是“独立的”。
It was common groundthat SGS are an organization providing inspectors and surveyors on a worldwidebasis who have the highest reputation. It was also common ground that they wereappointed by the respective receivers of the cargo, Chevron and Exxon, and notjointly by the owners and receivers. It was also common ground that, as isusual, they attended to measure the cargo during discharge and it was only whena question was raised as to the liquid and pumpable cargo remaining on boardthat the other surveyors became involved. It was on this basis that thecharterers contended that SGS were clearly "independent" within themeaning of cl. L8.
出租人承认，虽然SGS可能一般被描述为“独立”，但它们并不是第8条内独立的含义，作为该条款设想了一名共同任命的验船师。这是因为，与更常见的标准Amoco保留条款不同，验船师的决定是最终的并具有约束力。他们指出，出租人任命的Sabine Surveyors Inc.验船师也发布了一份文件，但结论是船上剩余的货物是不可泵的。出租人他们问了一个修辞问题，为什么那不是独立测量师的认定，如此最终并且具有相反的效果？Thomas法官认为，如果通过证明所涉问卷的测量师是独立于出租人或承租人或收货人的公司或组织来满足“独立”的含义，那么在任何卸货港口总有可能存在多个验船师谁是这个定义的“独立”。如果每个人得出不同的结论，那么每一个都不能是最终的，并且在各方之间具有约束力。因此，在本租船合同使用的条款中增加“其估计应为最终和具有约束力”的字样，必须在油轮日常卸货作业的背景下设想共同委任一名验船师，代表各方作出最终决定并具有约束力。除此之外，Thomas法官认为，除非该人是共同任命的，否则双方本来不太可能有意委托这样一项重要的决定，而这项决定将包括对重大金额的最终决定。在该条款的标准形式中，独立验船师的决定不是最终的或具有约束力的；它只会使租船人有权从运费中扣除。这将对出租人造成不利的现金流后果，但如果他能确定船存油不能泵出，则保留出租人的权利完好无损地收回未付运费。在本租船合同中使用的条款中，验船师的决定不是关于现金流，而是关于最终确定当事人的权利。
If the meaning of"independent" is satisfied by showing that the surveyor in questionis a firm or organization that operates independently of the owner or chartereror receiver, then there is always the likelihood that at any discharge portthere will be more than one surveyor who is "independent" on thisdefinition. If each reached a differing conclusion, then each could not befinal and binding as between the parties. It follows, therefore, that theaddition in the clause used in this charter-party of the words "whoseestimate shall be final and binding" must have envisaged in the context ofday to day discharge operations from tankers the appointment of a surveyorjointly on behalf of the parties to make a determination that was final andbinding. Quite apart from that, I consider that it is highly unlikely that theparties would have intended to entrust such an important determination whichwould involve final decisions on significant sums of money unless the personwas jointly appointed. In the standard form of the clause, a determination byan independent surveyor would not be final or binding; it would merely entitlethe charterer to make a deduction from freight. This would have an adversecashflow consequence to the owner, but leave the owner with his right intact torecover the unpaid freight, if he could establish that the oil was not pumpable.In the clause used in this charter-party, the decision of the surveyor was notas to cashflow but as to the final determination of the rights of the parties.
Thomas法官认为，该条款要求验船师确定他对船上剩余货物量的估计，即（1）液体，（2）可泵送和（3）船舶泵可达到的。 SGS文件不是合同第8条要求的确定或估计的简短而确凿的原因，是否在SGS文件中没有任何关于液体是否可通过船舶泵达到的问题的声明。这种遗漏几乎肯定是因为船舶泵可以到达货物的要求是承租人标准形式的条款的附加手稿，SGS文件是他们的标准文件。这足以就该争议作出对承租人不利的判决。
但是，Thomas法官认为应该补充一点，他认为在出租人的论点中有相当大的力量，即SGS使用的措辞形式在任何情况下都不是判定的语言。在Thomas法官看来，SGS声明他们的行为没有责任是没有意义的，因为确定问题的专家和仲裁员通常会排除因确定而产生的任何责任。但是，SGS文件的措辞根本不表示影响当事人权利的决定；它对船上的货物提出了意见，但要求将油泵到岸上，如果不能将其泵到岸上，则要求说明理由。
Thomas法官还认为，出租人的论点中有很大的分量，即使一般语言作为确定船上剩余的货物是液体的，也没有确定货物是否可以泵出。 SGS通过使用“通常被行业”称为“可泵送”的词语来避免做出这种决定。如果SGS确定货物是否可以泵出，则由SGS决定该货物是否可泵作为一个事实问题，不同于是否为液体。
The clause required that the surveyor determine hisestimate of the volume of cargo remaining on board which was (1) liquid, (2)pumpable and (3) reachable by the vessel's pumps. The short and conclusive reason why the SGSdocument is not a determination or estimate required by cl. L8 is there is nostatement whatsoever on the SGS document dealing with the question of whetherthe liquid was reachable by the vessel's pumps. This omission almost certainlyresulted because the requirement that the cargo be reachable by the vessel'spumps was a manuscript addition to the charterer's standard form of clause andthe SGS document was their standard document. That is sufficient to decide theissue against the charterers.
However, I should addthat I see considerable force in owners' contention that the form of wordingused by SGS is not in any event the language of determination. It is, in myview, of no significance that SGS state that they act without responsibility,for it is common for experts and arbitrators who determine matters to excludeany liability rising out of a determination. However, the wording of the SGSdocument simply does not express a determination that operates to affect therights of the parties; it gives an opinion as to what is on board but asks forthe oil to be pumped ashore and asks for reasons to be stated if it can not bepumped ashore.
I also consider thatthere is much force in the owners' contention that even if the general languageoperated as a determination that the cargo remaining on board was liquid, therewas no determination that the cargo was pumpable. SGS avoid making thatdetermination by use of the words "commonly referred to as"pumpable" by the industry". If SGS were determining whether thecargo was pumpable, it was for SGS to decide whether the cargo was pumpable asa factual issue distinct from the determination as to whether it was liquid.
关于如果没有独立检验人员的判定或估计是否有权从运费中作扣减的问题，承租人声称，即使没有判定或估计，他们仍有权按合同第8条从运费中扣除。承租人所依据的主要理由是，当事人无法让调查人员确定合同第8条中括号内的事项。即货物是否是液体，可泵送和船舶配置的泵可达的，但是由于出租人的过失或疏忽；承租人争辩说，没有独立的调查员可能会对此事做出最终和具有约束力的决定。
Thomas法官认为他承认业内的测量师不太可能做出这样的判定，但他必须反对这一条款的明确措辞。该条款规定，根据该条款采取的任何行为或不采取行为都应“在不损害当事人的任何权利或义务的情况下”。承租人接受行为或缺乏行为必须指独立验船师的行为或缺乏行为。因此，如果独立调查员没有采取行动，那么根据该条款的措词，当事人的一般权利和义务不受影响。
除了第8条之外，共同点是承租人必须支付运费。从第8条的第一部分也可以清楚地看出，要做出独立的判定。对该条款该部分的自然和普通解读是，从运费中扣除的权利取决于这种决定，而该条款的其余部分规定，如果没有决定，当事人的权利和义务不受影响。因此，如果没有确定，则无权从运费中扣除，但必须由承租人为船上剩余的任何货物提出独立索赔。除了对该条款的自然解读之外，如果当事方已经规定作出独立决定，它们也不太可能仅仅在承租人的断言下可以扣除运费。这样做没有任何商业意义。Thomas法官认为，明确语言或其背后更广泛的商业目的。根据Amoco标准条款对这些承租人进行修订的本条款，在他看来，旨在提供一个简要的补救措施。如果由独立验船师确定，则可以对运费进行最终扣除，而出租人无权收回运费。但是，如果没有做出这样的决定，则必须全额支付运费，并且承租人必须以普通方式就他们所说的船上货物提出索赔。
基于已提出的理由，Thomas法官人认为（1），即SGS文件不是独立验船师的决定或估计，而问题（2）如果没有这样的决定或估计，则承租人无权从运费中扣减卸货后留在船上的任何货物的价值。
Forthe reasons I have set out, I therefore answer question (1) that the SGSdocument is not a determination or an estimate by an independent surveyor andquestion (2) that absent such a determination or estimate the charterers arenot entitled to deduct from freight the value of any cargo remaining on boardafter discharge.
在该案中，Thomas法官认为，SGS并非合同条款内所指的独立的检验人员，而且其检验结果也未说明合同条款所要求的，残存货物是液体的，可卸的，是船舶油泵管路可触及的，因此该检验报告并不是最终的，对出租人没有约束力，承租人无权在运费中作任何抵扣。
因此，检验人员是否能被视为合同条款中约定的独立的检验人员也是官司成败的重要因素之一，如果一旦不能被认定为独立检验人员，那么其所出具的报告将没有任何约束力。这种情况，在航速索赔方面也存在类似的问题，假如合同中约定应该委托WNI，而承租人私自委托了AWT，那么AWT的报告对出租人而言，将没有任何约束力，承租人无权依据AWT的气导报告找出租人索赔。
三、ALFRED C. TOEPFERv.CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. [1974] 1 Lloyd’sRep.11 (
在1968年8月，卖家Continental Grain Co. 与卖家Alfred C. Toepfer签订了两份小麦买卖合同，卖家同意卖5,000长吨给买家，装货港在Great Lakes。每份合同都包含如下条款：
Quality: No. 3 HARD AMBERDURAM WHEAT of
根据转售合约，买家将小麦转售给意大利的分买家，而转售合约则以第二种形式出售，并入了第27号伦敦玉米贸易协会格式。每份转售合约均规定：
Quality final as per officialLakes Loading Inspection certificate or any other official inspectioncertificate.
先解释一下“硬粒小麦”，它是小麦，其中许多核心是坚硬的玻璃质和琥珀色。硬粒小麦分为以下几类：（1）最低级别是低于60％的。琥珀小麦的坚硬和玻璃质粒。它简称为“硬粒小麦”。（2）中间级别占60％。或更多，但不到75％。琥珀色的坚硬和玻璃质内核。这个级别被称为“琥珀硬粒小麦”。（3）最高的级别是75％。或更多琥珀色的坚硬和玻璃质内核。这个级别被称为“硬琥珀硬粒小麦”。描述小麦的分级，这取决于小麦中灰尘或其他异物的百分比，受损或有缺陷的谷粒的百分比等。有五个等级，1，2，3，4和5。这些合同是“3号硬琥珀硬质小麦”。因此，小麦应该是最高级别，即75％。或更多琥珀色的坚硬和玻璃质内核。该买卖合约中约定的等级是3，中间级别的。
在1968年8月签订合同时，小麦位于威斯康星州大陆谷物公司的谷物装载机中。1968年10月19日，该批货物被装上一艘开往意大利的船舶。在装载时，由官方检查员Braman在装载机进行了检查。Braman他获得了美国联邦当局的许可，他受雇于威斯康星州政府并领薪。在纸质证书上，Braman出具的报告内容描述如下：
GRAIN INSPECTION CERTIFICATE.
LOCATION ELEVATOR: CONTINENTAL. DATEOctober 19, 1969.
I hereby certify that I hold a license under the
VESSEL: MOTOR VESSEL PENQUER QUANTITY202,298 - 51 bushels
GRADE AND KIND 3 HARD AMBER DURUM WHEAT.
在检查时，采取了“原始文件样本”，也就是说，在装载船舶期间取样并由许可当局保存在档案中以备将来参考。根据检查员的证明，货物符合合同要求，即属于等级3的硬琥珀硬质小麦。卖方将该证书连同提单和其他文件一起提交给买方。买方依据运输单据支付商定的价格。买家又转卖给了意大利买家，他们也评货物单据用现金支付。谷物在五大湖装到Penquer轮上，它于1968年11月运到意大利。货物卸下并交付给意大利的分买家。他们发现硬质小麦不符合合同要求。他们通过外交途径向美国农业部进行了陈述，后者对此进行了调查。他们拿出了“原始文件样本”并进行了检查。它只显示了67.12％。因此，在1969年3月，他们承认原检查员的证书是错误的。“3号硬琥珀硬质小麦”的货物应该含有75％，或更多琥珀色的坚硬和玻璃质内核。实际上它只占67.12％。因此，只有在“Amber Durum小麦”的中间类别中，并且不符合合同要求和证书所述的最高级别的“硬琥珀硬质小麦”。
在发现小麦没有达到合同约定的规格时，意大利分买家向德国买家抱怨，后者又向大陆谷物公司投诉，争议进入仲裁。仲裁员无法达成一致意见，任命La Riviere为首席仲裁员。1969年10月7日，仲裁庭认为，尽管承认错误，但证书是最终的，具有约束力，买家不能再回头了。
. . . I . . . DO HEREBY AWARD that Buyers claim for damages fails becausethe official certificate at loading as to quality/condition is final.
买方向商事法院提出上诉，他们也同意证书是最终的；但他们陈述了法院意见的案例。Cooke法官也判定证书是最终的，现在向本法院提出上诉。在作出判决时，商事法院对买家表示同情。法院认为没有任何迹象表明谷物检验证书是通过欺诈或错误获得的，但很明显证书是由于检查员的错误而签发的，检查员一直“疏忽”。然而，法院认为感到无法在不表达他们对其效果的不安的情况下颁发法院的判决。在法院看来，商业上很苛刻，由于所有相关方（包括发证机构都是错误的）所接受的疏忽认证，买方应该没有补救措施。如果法院愿意这样做，就可以允许上诉。然而，法院认为有责任根据他们的理解依法判决此上诉。
There was no suggestion that the Grain Inspection Certificates had beenobtained by fraud or mistake but it was clear that the Certificates had beenissued as a result of an error by the Inspector. . . . the Inspector had been"negligent". We feel unable however to make our Award without expressingour own disquiet at the effect thereof. It seems to us commercially harsh thata buyer should be left without remedy as the result of a negligentcertification which is accepted by all interested parties including the issuingauthority to be in error. Had we felt free to do so we would have allowed theappeal. It is however our duty to decide this Appeal according to the law as weunderstand it.
因此，商事法院会认为，证书是最终的。但他们觉得买家不得不忍受这种未达标的小麦并且没有任何补偿。买家不服判决，上诉。
上诉法院的Denning勋爵（当时是）认为买家的第一个论点是证书只是最终的“质量”。他们说，关于货物的“描述”，这不是最终的。他们说这里的错误是描述中的错误，而不是质量。上诉法院接受了关于“质量”和“描述”之间差异的学术讨论。被提到了货物销售案件和法规的规定，Denning勋爵承认讨论无益。商品的“描述”通常包括其质量声明。因此，“新产蛋”包含质量和描述。“质量”通常是描述的一部分。在这种情况下，“硬”这个词既是质量又是描述。如果证书对于质量“硬”是最终的，那么对于该描述也是最终的。质量和描述是不可分割的。关于一方的终结性意味着另一方的终极性。但无论如何，在这种情况下，商业仲裁员比任何律师都要好得多。他们对本合同中“质量”一词的解释虽然对法院没有约束力，但价值最高。
If a certificate is final as to the quality "hard", it is finalas to that description also. The quality and description cannot be separated.Finality as to one means finality as to the other. But in any case, on a matterof this kind, the commercial arbitrators are much better Judges than anylawyers. Their interpretation of the word "quality" in this contract,though not binding on the Court, is of the highest value.
Denning勋爵认为这份证书证明这种小麦是“3号硬琥珀硬质小麦”，证明了小麦的质量，当事人明确同意这是最终的。它对买卖双方都有约束力，除非有理由推翻它。
I hold therefore thatthis certificate, in certifying that this wheat was "No. 3 Hard AmberDurum Wheat" was certifying the quality of the wheat. It was expresslyagreed to be final. It is binding on both buyers and sellers unless there issome reason for overthrowing it.
买方抗辩说这个证书是在一个错误下制作的，美国农业部已经承认了这一点。他们谴责检查员，他们向他发出了“正式的纠正措施”。检查员自己承认他犯了一个错误。在此基础上，买方认为证书对他们没有约束力。
Denning勋爵认为除了权威之外，显然证明人是错误的，即使后来被他承认是错误的，也不会使证书无效。它仍然在卖方和买方之间以及所有链条之间具有约束力。
Apart altogether fromauthority, I am clearly of opinion that a mistake by the certifier, even whenafterwards admitted by him to be a mistake, does not invalidate thecertificate. It remains binding as between seller and buyer and all down thechain.
商事法院在其裁决中列出了支持这一观点的商业理由：
The commercial purposeof the provisions [for an official certificate to be final as to quality] . . .is to avoid disputes as to quality and to achieve finality in this respect oncea proper certificate of inspection had been issued and tendered. A furtherreason . . . is that differences of opinion are otherwise to be expected amongpersons experienced in the grain trade in countries outside the United Statesand Canada as to the correct grading (including both the grade and sub-class)of consignments of U.S. or Canadian grain and such differences would otherwisegive rise to numerous disputes.
关于质量的正式证书，规定的商业目的是，一旦签发适当的检验证书并进行招标，就应避免质量纠纷并在这方面取得终局。还有一个原因是美国和加拿大以外国家的粮食贸易经验老到的人对美国或加拿大粮食货物的正确等级（包括等级和分等级）以及这种差异的预期意见分歧否则会引起很多争议。
Denning勋爵认为必须记住，许多人根据证书的信仰行事，例如买方，分买方，银行借钱等等。良好的意识要求仲裁员和法院应全面维护该条款的最终结果。仲裁员自己不能随后说：“我犯了一个错误”。法律原则证实了这些商业考虑因素。Denning勋爵他试图在最近的Arenson v.Arenson，[1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep.104 案中第107页总结说到：
Whenever two persons agreetogether to refer a matter to a third person for decision, and further agreethat his decision is to be final and binding upon them, then, so long as hearrives at his decision honestly and in good faith, the two parties are boundby it. They cannot re-open it for mistake or error on his part of for anyreason other than for fraud or collusion.
Denning勋爵认为这些话在这里是合适的，没有欺诈或串通的暗示。这是一个错误或错误的情况。买方的代表律师Staughton引援Dean v. Prince案及Wright v.Frodoor案，在这些案中认为可以预留证书或估价，不仅用于欺诈，而且还用于重大错误或误判，无论如何，如果它出现在证书的正面或被证明人接纳。买方的代表律师Staughton特别依赖于Harman法官在Dean v. Prince案中所说的话。 Denning勋爵不认为这些案件和这些意见适用于像现在这样的案件。它们最多适用于仍然有效的合同，并且一方当事人要求股权法院要求他们具体执行。它们不适用于已经执行的合同，如此处，已经交付的货物销售合同。在这种情况下，各方以及链中的所有人都有权将证书视为最终证书。由于验证者的错误，它们之间不会感到忧虑。
Denning勋爵认为回到已读过的重要段落，其中上诉委员会表示，“商业上很苛刻，因为疏忽证明，买方应该没有救济。”但是Denning勋爵不认为买方没有得到补救，他们对卖方没有任何补救措施，但他们可能会对疏忽的认证机构采取补救措施。Denning勋爵指出在Arenson v.Arenson，[1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep.104中审查了这个问题，被提交给了美国法院的当局。这些表明，在该国家，证书不能在双方之间因证明人的错误而被搁置，参见Sanitary Farmv. Gammel，（1952）195 F. 2d.106案：但是疏忽的证明人对因疏忽而受伤的一方承担赔偿责任，见Gammel v. Ernst＆Ernst，（1955）。这可能不是这个国家的法律，但强大的声音认为它应该是，见Sutcliffe v. Thackrah，[1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep.115案。Denning勋爵认为在本案中，证书是在美国给出的，似乎有一种补救办法。在该国家，买方可以获得商业上苛刻结果的救济。然而，回到买卖双方之间的本案，Denning勋爵认为毫不怀疑地判，上诉法院和法官是完全正确的，买方的上诉被驳回。
I return now to the significant passage which I haveread, in which the Board of Appeal said that it was "commercially harshthat a buyer should be left without remedy as the result of a negligentcertificate." I do not think he is left without a remedy. He has no remedyagainst the seller, but he may well have a remedy against the negligentcertifier.We looked at thisquestion in Arenson v. Arenson, [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 104; [1973] 2 W.L.R. 553.We were referred to authorities in the Courts of the
Returning, however, tothe present case as between buyer and seller, I have no doubt that the umpire,the Board of Appeal and the Judge were entirely right. I would dismiss thisappeal.
在本案中，Denning勋爵认为必须记住，许多人根据证书的信仰行事，例如买方，分买方，银行借钱等等。如果没有欺诈或勾结，那么良好的意识要求仲裁员和法院应全面维护该条款的最终结果。但Denning勋爵不认为买方没有得到救济，他们对卖方没有任何救济，但买方可以对疏忽的认证机构主张救济。
四、Sutcliffe v.Thackrah and Others [1974] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 318(H.L.)案
在该案中，1961年，原告希望在他所获得的遗址上建造一座高级住宅。 他与那些建筑师事务所的被告取得了联系，进行了长时间的详细讨论。最终在1963年，建筑师为承包商的招标准备了必要的文件。最低的投标，22,368英镑，由David Walbank公司提供，并被接受，即R.I.B.A.，正在使用的合同形式。原告和建筑师之间似乎没有任何正式合同，但他们知道R.I.B.A.，这点上没有争议。R.I.B.A.格式的合同将被使用，并且他们承诺履行该合同形式下的建筑师的职责。
房子应该在1964年初完成，但进展缓慢，建筑师有机会向承包商提出一些投诉。建筑师向承包商颁发了许多临时证书。本案起因于两个证书的问题，1964年5月25日的第9号，2,620英镑。1964年7月1日第10号，1,837英镑。这些款项由原告正式支付。此后不久，决定终止Walbank的合同。原告有充分理由采取这一步骤并不存在争议。然后，Walbank破产了。
但是后来发现这些临时证书涵盖了许多有缺陷的工作。修复这些缺陷的费用无法从Walbank中收回，因此在1968年，原告向建筑师起诉因建筑师在签发这些证书时疏忽造成的损失。经过长时间的诉讼，法庭在1972年裁定建筑师犯了疏忽罪并判给原告赔偿金。似乎已经发生的事情是，其中一位建筑师在证书制作之前就已经很清楚这些缺陷，但他没有将这些信息传递给其他测量师，他们认为所有工作都令人满意。
被告（建筑师）的理由是，有一项法治可以免除建筑师在签发证书时的疏忽责任。被告主张，建筑师的职责只是诚实行事，而被告确实诚实行事并不存在争议。但据说，在颁发证书时，建筑师对其客户没有义务去运用护理或专业技能。对于这个相当令人吃惊的命题有权威，上诉法院明显不愿意遵守它。但是贵族院可以自由地重新考虑整个问题。如果认为建筑师确实对他们的客户负有照顾和技能的责任，那么现在对于被告没有履行该职责并且同意损害赔偿应该以2,000英镑进行评估的现在并不存在争议。
被告的论据始于基于公共政策的无可置疑的规则，即法官对履行其司法职责时的疏忽不承担赔偿责任。下一步是雇用履行司法职责的人不会因疏忽而向雇主承担责任。贵族院的Reid勋爵认为这条规则已经适用于仲裁员很长一段时间了。它是牢固确立的，现在不能被贵族院的法官质疑。它必须建立在公共政策的基础上，但不知道有任何权威性的声明。Denning勋爵认为这是对的，但这不是不言而喻的。
The argument for therespondents starts from the undoubted rule, based on public policy, that aJudge is not liable in damages for negligence in performing his judicialduties. The next step is that those employed to perform duties of a judicialcharacter are not liable to their employers for negligence. This rule has beenapplied to arbitrators for a very long time. It is firmly established and couldnot now be questioned by your Lordships. It must be founded on public policybut I am not aware of any authoritative statement of the reason for it. I thinkit is right but it is hardly self-evident.
Reid勋爵认为，一般规则是，如果雇员因履行其职责而未能采取适当的谨慎行事或行使合理的专业技能而导致雇主损失，则该雇员履行职业角色的责任将承担赔偿责任。那么，如果他所聘用的职责具有司法性质，他为何不承担责任呢？
Reid勋爵认为，原因必须至少部分源于司法性质的责任的特殊性质。在这个国家，司法职责不涉及调查。在发生争议之前，它们不会出现。争议各方同意提交争议以供决策。它的每一方以某种形式提交其证据和争用。然后，仲裁员的职责是形成判断并做出裁定。
There is a general rulethat a person employed to perform duties of a professional character is liablein damages if he causes loss to his employer by failure to take due care or toexercise reasonable professional skill in carrying out his duties. So whyshould he not be liable if the duties which he is employed to perform are of ajudicial character?
The reason must, Ithink, be derived at least in part from the peculiar nature of duties of ajudicial character. In this country judicial duties do not involveinvestigation. They do not arise until there is a dispute. The parties to adispute agree to submit the dispute for decision. Each party to it submits hisevidence and contention in one form or another. It is then the function of thearbitrator to form a judgment and reach a decision.
Reid勋爵认为在其他形式的专业活动中，专业人员通常会自行调查。最后他必须做出决定，但这是一种不同的决定。他没有确定争议：他决定在所有情况下做什么。他可能会出错，因为他在某些州没有采取适当的谨慎措施，这可能并不难以证明。但是，对提交裁决的材料做出错误但诚实的决定很少是由于疏忽或缺乏照顾，而且很少因为完全没有行使专业技能而导致过失。在绝大多数情况下，由于判断错误，在达成司法性质决定时存在很大的意见分歧，即使是最熟练和经验丰富的仲裁员或其他以司法身份行事的人也可能不经常做出其他人认为明显错误的决定。但是，一个被认为是错误的决定的一方通常会认为这是一种疏忽，Reid勋爵认为仲裁员对疏忽责任的豁免权必须基于这样的信念。可能是有根据的，如果没有这种豁免权，仲裁员将受到几乎没有成功机会的行为的骚扰。并且可能还有人认为仲裁员可能会受到这样一种想法的影响，即如果他的决定采取了一种方式，那么他就更有可能被起诉，或者说是以某种方式豁免权让他更多独立的立场，以达到他认为正确的裁定。
但无论公共政策的理由是什么导致了以司法身份行事的人的这种豁免权，Reid勋爵认为他们在没有履行司法职能时适用于专业人员时，不会有同样的力量。Reid勋爵认为通过考虑从事某些财产或客体价值的技术人员的情况，可以最清楚地说明这一点。情况可能会有很大差异。业主可能希望出售或保险，并想知道其市场价值。没有人怀疑在这种情况下，如果估价师的疏忽估价导致了业主的损失，估价师可能会因疏忽而被起诉。或者所有者可能有理由相信特定的人A会从他那里购买房产并接受技术人员的估价。或者他可能同意A以价格出售，由熟练的估价师或该特定估价师确定。在与他交往时，他可能会或可能不会告诉估价师。
The point can perhaps bemost clearly illustrated by considering the case of a skilled man engaged tovalue some property or object. The circumstances may vary very much. The ownermay wish to sell or insure the property and want to know its market value. Noone doubts that in that case the valuer may be sued for negligence if hisnegligent valuation has caused loss to the owner. Or the owner may have reasonto believe that a particular person A would buy the property from him and wouldaccept a valuation by a skilled man. Or he may have agreed with A to sell at a priceto be fixed by a skilled valuer, or by this particular valuer. And he may ormay not have told the valuer about this when engaging him.
Reid勋爵认为现代权威是指如果估价师知道他的估价会影响或约束他的客户以外的另一个人，那么他可以申请仲裁员的豁免权。估价师在每种情况下仅由一方参与，并且他在所有这些情况下具有完全相同的任务。他必须尽其所能估计房产的市场价格。Reid勋爵不相信专业人士会以任何不同的精神接近他的任务或受到任何重大影响，因为他知道除了他的雇主之外的其他人的利益会受到他所达成的结论的影响。
There is modernauthority to the effect that if the valuer knows that his valuation will affector bind another person besides his client the owner, then he can claim anarbitrator's immunity. But why should that be? The valuer is in each caseengaged by only one party and he has exactly the same task to perform in allthese cases. He must, to the best of his ability, estimate the market price ofthe property. I do not believe that a professional man would approach his taskin any different spirit or be influenced in any significant way because he knewthat the interests of some other person besides his employer would be affectedby the conclusion which he reached.
Reid勋爵认为另一方面，如果对某些财产的价值存在争议，则估价人可以作为仲裁员聘请双方。争议将提交给他作出决定，双方将争议提交给他。然后，他必须在他们之间进行判断并拥有仲裁员的豁免权。Reid勋爵认为现在可以来到建筑师的位置。他受雇于业主，但与承包商没有合约。在这种情况下，没有机会考虑他是否可能对承包商负有责任：Reid勋爵不认为在这种情况下对此事项的考虑会有所帮助。 R.I.B.A.合同形式非常详细地阐述了建筑师的职能。经常有人说，Reid勋爵也认同，建筑师有两种不同类型的功能可供使用。在许多事情上，无论他是否同意，他都必须按照客户的指示行事；但在许多其他需要专业技能的事项中，他必须根据自己的意见行事。
Now I can come to theposition of an architect. He is employed by the building owner but has nocontract with the contractor. We do not in this case have occasion to considerwhether nevertheless he may have some duty to the contractor: I do not thinkthat a consideration of that matter would help in the present case. TheR.I.B.A. form of contract sets out the architect's functions in great detail.It has often been said, I think rightly, that the architect has two different typesof function to perform. In many matters he is bound to act on his client's instructions, whether he agreeswith them or not; but in many other matters requiring professional skill hemust form and act on his own opinion.
关于Buckley勋爵在Arenson v. Arenson, [1973]
In my judgment, these authorities establish in a manner binding upon us inthis court that, where a third party undertakes the role of deciding as betweentwo other parties a question, the determination of which requires the thirdparty to hold the scales fairly between the opposing interests of the twoparties, the third party is immune from an action for negligence in respect ofanything done in that role .
Reid勋爵认为这种观点没有好的理由。如果他的猜想对于引起仲裁员豁免权的公共政策的原因有任何有效性，那么这些理由就不适用于这种情况。承诺公平行事的人通常被称为“准仲裁员”。人们几乎可以认为这是基于完全不合逻辑的论点：所有履行司法职能的人都必须公平行事，因此所有必须公平行事的人都在履行司法职能。在确定某些工作是否有缺陷时，建筑师的职能没有任何司法判断。这没有争议，他并非双方共同参与。他们不提交有争议的证据，他自己进行调查并做出决定。如果不将他置于一个特殊的位置，他的雇主会希望他采取不公平的行为，或者一名专业人士愿意偏离普通的专业行为标准，这将是一个非常低下的观点。
I can see no good groundsfor this view. If there is any validity in my conjecture as to the reason ofpublic policy giving rise to the immunity of arbitrators, those reasons do notapply to this situation. Persons who undertake to act fairly have often beencalled "quasi-arbitrators". One might almost suppose that to be basedon the completely illogical argument - all persons carrying out judicialfunctions must act fairly, therefore all persons who must act fairly arecarrying out judicial functions. There is nothing judicial about an architect'sfunction in determining whether certain work is defective. There is no dispute.He is not jointly engaged by the parties. They do not submit evidence ascontentious to him. He makes his own investigations and comes to a decision. It would be taking a very low view to suppose that without his being put in aspecial position his employer would wish him to act unfairly or that aprofessional man would be willing to depart from the ordinary honourablestandard of professional conduct.
Reid勋爵认为多数人的观点没有什么新鲜事。Chambers案件的重要性在于，它的事实与本案几乎无法区分。因此，如果允许本案这种上诉，则必须推翻。关于早先的案件，Reid勋爵认为在这种情况下检查它们并确定它们在多大程度上受到众议院意见的影响是不切实际的。许多（可能是大多数）决定可以根据他们的事实来证明。还有一些边界线案例，很难确定是否有足够的司法要素要求仲裁员的豁免权。如果声称具有这种豁免权，那么声称它的人就表明他所疏忽的履行职能具有足够的司法性质。最终Reid勋爵允许原告上诉。
Morris ofBorth-Y-Gest勋爵在本案中认可博学的官方调查人的如下观点，通过这样做，建筑师他们夸大了工作的价值而不是错误的计算，为了证书的目的而忽略了缺陷的存在。因此，他们需对原告不得不向承包商支付他们没有妥善处理的工作负责，结果使他遭受了损害。
I am driven to theconclusion that, in the steps that they took or rather failed to take, thedefendants were at fault in the preparation of interim certificates 9 and 10,but more particularly No. 10. They failed in my view in that respect to act asany reasonably competent architect would have acted. They knew, or ought tohave known at the time, that the plaintiff had ordered the contractors toleave, they had written to the contractors on 26th June confirming that theywere to leave, and stating that a list of defects and outstanding work would beproduced. They must have known at least of the possibility that thesecontractors would not be recalled to remedy those defects. They knew that thecontract had been nearing completion. In these circumstances, I consider thatit was their plain duty to be particularly accurate in their valuation of thework properly executed, to that date. Unfortunately, as I find, they failed inthis respect. They failed to keep Mr. Robinson, their quantity surveyorimmediately concerned informed as to the state of the work. They knew ofdefects which had come to light, certainly in the course of May and June which theyeither had not required, or had failed to get the contractors to put right, andthey failed to bring these to his attention, and therefore to exclude thatdefective work from those certificates. By so doing they overstated the value of the work not bymiscalculation, but by ignoring the existence of the defects, for the purposeof that certificate. They were therefore responsible for the plaintiff havingto pay the contractors for work which they had not properly executed, and inthe result he has suffered damage.
Morris ofBorth-Y-Gest勋爵在总结结论时，在第331页判决中说到，他认为必须以这样的观点为前提，即每个案件将取决于其自身的事实和情况以及相关合同的特定条款。但一般而言，任何建筑师，验船师或估价师如果因疏忽而导致损失，将对雇用他的人负责。如果建筑师或验船师或估价师通过协议被指定担任仲裁员，则将有例外情况并给予司法豁免。在某些情况下，仲裁实际上不属于仲裁法的规定。准仲裁表达式只应用于该连接。如果有人向他提交特定争议或目前的差异点或未来可能产生的明确差异，并且如果他们同意他的决定具有约束力，那么他将只是仲裁员或准仲裁员。建筑师在评估工作时必须公平公正地行事并不构成仲裁员或准仲裁员。建筑物所有者和承包商之间就建筑师的证书显示到期余额达成的确凿证据表明工程已经完成并且承包商有权获得付款的情况本身并不涉及建筑师是提供证书的仲裁员或准仲裁员。在本案中，建筑师（在应付金额的临时证明中）记录正确执行的工作总价值以及交付的材料和货物的事实并不构成他是仲裁员。他因过度认证的疏忽而需承担责任。
基于所提出的理由，Morris of Borth-Y-Gest勋爵允许上诉，并且根据商定的金额修订，恢复博学的官方调查人的判决。
In summarizing my conclusions I must preface them by theobservation that each case will depend upon its own facts and circumstances andupon the particular provisions of the relevant contract. But in general anyarchitect or surveyor or valuer will be liable to the person who employs him ifhe causes loss by reason of his negligence. There will be an exception to thisand judicial immunity will be accorded if the architect or surveyor or valuerhas by agreement been appointed to act as an arbitrator. There may be circumstances in which what is ineffect an arbitration is not one that is within the provisions of theArbitration Act. The expression quasi-arbitrator should only be used in thatconnection. A person will only be an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator if there isa submission to him either of a specific dispute or of present points ofdifference or of defined differences that may in the future arise and if thereis agreement that his decision will be binding. The circumstance that an architectin valuing work must act fairly and impartially does not constitute him eitheran arbitrator or a quasi-arbitrator. The circumstance that a building owner andcontractor agree between themselves that a certificate of an architect showinga balance due is to be conclusive evidence of the works having been dulycompleted and that the contractor is entitled to receive payment does not ofitself involve that the architect is an arbitrator or quasi-arbitrator ingiving his certificate. Chambers v. Goldthorpe was wrongly decided. The factthat in the present case the architect had (in an interim certificate as to theamount due) to record the total value of work properly executed and ofmaterials and goods delivered did not constitute him an arbitrator. He incurredliability for his negligence in over-certifying.
For the reasons that Ihave given I would allow the appeal and, subject to the agreed revision as toamount, I would restore the judgment of the learned Official Referee.
在本案中，贵族院的大法官们认为，任何建筑师，验船师或估价师与仲裁员并不相同，在许多事情上，无论他是否同意，他都必须按照客户的指示行事；但在许多其他需要专业技能的事项中，他必须根据自己的意见公平公正地行事。如果因其疏忽而导致损失，将对雇用他的人负责。除非是建筑师或验船师或估价师通过协议被指定担任仲裁员，则将有例外情况并给予司法豁免；否则将需为其疏忽而承担责任。
总结：
通过这些先例的对比分析，现在回到本文开头的J轮案。合同第41条关于交还船检验的规定如下：
To ascertain vessel’s conditions and bunker quantity on delivery andredelivery, joint on-hire and off-hire survey to be carried at the port ofdelivery and redelivery respectively by an independent and competent surveyoracceptable to both owners and charterers. On-hire survey in owners’ time and off-hiresurvey in charterers’ time while cost to be equally shared.
对于承租人所推荐的还船检验员（Marine Survey & Cargo Inspection），出租人并没有反对，接受了承租人的推荐，因此可以被视为是独立的检验人员。胜任与否，不是本文的重点，因此不再做介绍。依据这些先例，该检验人员必须凭借其专业技能，根据自己的意见公平公正地行事。很显然，在J轮船长和老轨明确提出抗议的情况下，仍然坚持其错误的观点，需为其疏忽而承担责任。
该条款并未说明检验人员将被视为仲裁员，因此不能享受仲裁员类似的司法豁免；因其过度高估了J轮的还船油量，导致了J轮的出租人损失，其得承担责任。同时在船长，老轨强烈抗议下，仍然出具了一份有违常识的报告，该检验人员的行为并不能完全免除欺诈或勾结。如果存在欺诈或勾结，那么这份所谓的还船检验报告对船东将没有约束力，是一份无效的报告。如Denning勋爵在CAMPBELL v. EDWARDS[1976] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 522案中，在第524页判决书中说到，这只是契约法，如果两个人同意财产价格应由他们同意的估价师确定，并且他诚实且真诚地给予该估价，则他们受其约束。即使他犯了错误，他们仍然受其约束。原因是他们同意受其约束。如果存在欺诈或勾结，那当然会有很大的不同，欺诈或勾结使一切变得无效。
It is simply the law of contract. If two persons agree that the price ofproperty should be fixed by a valuer on whom they agree, and he gives thatvaluation honestly and in good faith, they are bound by it. Even if he has madea mistake they are still bound by it. The reason is because they have agreed tobe bound by it. If there were fraud or collusion, of course, it would be verydifferent. Fraud or collusion unravels everything.
类似地，在ALFRED C. TOEPFERv.CONTINENTAL GRAIN CO. [1974] 1 Lloyd’sRep.11 (C.A.)案中，Cairns勋爵在第14页判决中说到，当当事人以某些独立人士的证书在他们之间具有约束力的条款订立合约时，重要的是法院不应轻易减轻他们中的一方受到诚实获得且不受损害的证书的约束。证明人的欺诈或根本性错误。例如，在这种情况下，合同要求的证书是与销售商品质量有关的证书，其商业目的是避免质量争议，并且除非对一方造成困难，否则在有效证书后面该目的将被取消。
When parties enter intoa contract on terms that the certificate of some independent person is to bebinding as between them, it is important that the Court should not lightly relieve one of them from beingbound by a certificate which was honestly obtained and not vitiated by fraud orfundamental mistake on the part of the certifier.When, for instance, asin this case, the certificate called for by the contract is one relating to thequality of goods sold, the business purpose is to avoid disputes about quality,and that purpose is defeated unless it is made difficult for a party to gobehind a valid certificate.
If the certificate isknown to be inaccurate - if it is admitted by the certifying authority and notdisputed by the seller that the goods were actually inferior in quality to whatis stated in the certificate, and that that was due to the negligence of theofficials engaged in giving the certificate, it certainly seems at first sighta hardship that the buyers should be bound by the certificate.
依据J轮案承租人的态度行为，似乎可以合理推断，该检验人员与承租人直接存在欺诈或勾结；该还船检验报告无效。同时，J轮的出租人将可以对该检验人员的公司可以主张救济。如在Veba OilSupply & Trading Gmbh and Petrotrade INC [2001] EWCA Civ 1832案中，Simon Brown勋爵在第22段判决引援Dillon勋爵所说：1970年代中期的法律发展规定，如果专家在提供证书时疏忽行事，专家可能要承担赔偿责任。
I come next to this court's decision in Jones v Sherwood Services Limited plc [1992]1 WLR 277 upholding an expert's report on the basis that the experts had doneprecisely what they had been instructed to do. In the course of a judgment which considered a largenumber of authorities, Dillon LJ noted first, the development of the law in themid-1970's establishing that an expert could be liable for damages if he hadacted negligently in giving his certificate (see the House of Lords'decisions in Sutcliffe v Thackrah [1974]AC 727 and Arenson v Arenson [1977]AC 405); secondly, that this required reconsideration of the principle that acertificate could be vitiated for mistake (how could an expert be liable for anegligent mistake in giving a certificate if the effect of that mistake wasthat the certificate was not binding on the parties?); and thirdly, thataccordingly, in Campbell vEdwards [1976] 1 WLR 403 and Baber v Kenwood Manufacturing Co. Limited [1978] 1 LloydsReports 175, this court "look[ed] at the question of setting asidecertificates of experts on grounds of mistake afresh in the light of theprinciple that the expert or valuer can be sued for negligence". LordDenning MR had said in Campbell v Edwards at p.407:
"It is simply the law of contract. Iftwo persons agree that the price of property should be fixed by a valuer onwhom they agree, and he gives that valuation honestly and in good faith, theyare bound by it. Even if he has made a mistake they are still bound by it. Thereason is because they have agreed to be bound by it."
当事如果在合同条款中作出了约定，The reportfrom the surveyor will be final and binding，检验人员的报告将是终局的，那么如果不存在欺诈或勾结，当事人将不得不接受此报告。此类条款将被严格解释，如《VoyageCharters》Chapter13-Freight, 13.72如下所说：
13.72 Where a charterparty contains a clause which renders theconclusion of an “independent” inspector “final andbinding”, the requirements of such clauses are strictlyconstrued and applied, and, in particular, it is likelythat the inspector must be one who hasbeen jointly appointed by both owners andcharterers as opposed to one who is merely independentof the parties.
因此，在恰定租约的时候，类似的在气导条款，也应该尽量避免，承租人委托的气导公司的报告是终局的这种条款，事后想再去举证气导公司存在欺诈或勾结将非常困难。
（因字数限制，将两封长电邮删除；此外英文排版有问题，会影响阅读。本篇写于中秋节~修改完成于2018.09.25）
海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex （微信公众号 航运佬）
