《装卸时间与滞期费》第3章-装卸时间的起算-连载34

　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

　　The Gencon form of charter 金康格式的租船合同范本

　　3.264 The 1994 version of the charter provides in relation to when laytime commences at clause 6(c) of Part II:

　　Laytime for loading and discharging shall commence at 13.00 hours, if notice of readiness is given up to and including 12.00 hours, and at 06.00 hours next working day if notice given during office hours after 12.00 hours....

　　The 1976 version of the charter is in similar terms, but does not use a 24-hour clock. Thus, if notice is given after noon but within office hours that day, laytime commences at 06 00 on the next working day. Some points to note are first the reference to office hours, rather than working hours, and secondly the reference to office hours must presumably mean office hours on a working day if time is to start at 06 00 on the next working day. If notice is given outside office hours, because by then it is past working hours in the port offices, or it is not a working day, or indeed, at any time up to 12 00 the next day, whatever the status of that day, time starts at 13 00. However, if the day on which notice commences is not a working day, it will be immediately suspended until when laytime resumes, usually 06 00 on the next working day. There is no overriding provision that notice can only be given in office hours on a working day and there is no need to imply such a term to make the clause workable. The default position is therefore that laytime will normally commence at 13 00 but, as an exception if it is given in office hours the previous day and that day is a working day, it will start at 06 00 on the day after it has been given.

　　3.264金康租船合同格式1994版本在第II部分第6(c)条款就有关装卸时间做了如下规定：

　　如果准备就绪通知书在中午1200点之前（包括12点）递交，装卸货时间从下午1300时起算；如通知书在1200点以后的办公时间内递交，装卸时间从下一个工作日上午0600时起算……

　　金康租船合同1976年的版本也是类似的条文，但不是使用的24小时的时间格式。因此，如果通知书是在中午以后且在该天的办公时间内递交，装卸时间就从下一个工作日的0600时开始起算。需要注意的几点是：第一，提到的是办公室时间，而不是实际工作时间，第二，如果装卸时间是从下一个工作日的0600时开始起算的话，提到的办公时间大概必须是该工作日的办公时间。如果通知书是在办公时间之外递交，因为那时已经过了港口办公室的工作时间，或者不是在工作日内，或者，的确是，直到下一天1200点之前的任何时间，无论该天是那一种情形，装卸时间是从1300开始。然而，通知书开始的那一天不是工作日，这就立即终止暂停直到装卸时间再次开始，通常是下一个工作日的0600时。这里没有首要条文要求通知书只能在工作日的办公时间递交，所以，也没有必要再默示这样条文，因为它（第6条款）已经是正常可用的。因此，该条文的默示地位是：装卸时间正常是从1300时开始，作为除外情况，如果通知书是在前一天的办公时间内递交并且那一天也是工作日的话，装卸时间就从通知书递交后的那一天的0600时开始起算。

　　Notice given before commencement date for laytime

　　在装卸时间开始起算前递交的准备就绪通知书

　　3.265 It is usual for a charter to specify two dates, the period between sometimes being called the laycan spread. The effect of these is that it is agreed that laytime cannot commence before the earlier date and, if the ship is not ready by the later date, the charterers have the option to cancel the charterparty. However, the date when laytime can commence and when notice can be given are totally different things. As was said in one London Arbitration:

　　It was often thought that a notice of readiness could not be given before the commencement of lay days under a charter, but that was incorrect unless there was an express provision to that effect. In the absence of such a provision, a valid notice might be given at any time, but the laytime could not commence before the date given in the charter.

　　This was confirmed by Rix LJ in The Front Commander. But this does not mean that any provision in the charter, such as notice to be given in office hours, can be ignored—it must still be complied with. If the charter provides for laytime to commence at a specified time, it will commence at that time after the opening of the laycan spread, provided of course any other restriction, e.g. that it is a working day, has also been met.

　　3.265通常，租船合同中都会规定两个日期，这两个日期之间的时间段就是有时所说的受载期(laycan spread)。其作用是经双方协议同意装卸时间不能在前一个日期之前起算，而且，如果船舶在后一个日期当时还未准备就绪，承租人有权选择解除该租船合同。然而，装卸时间可以起算的日期和通知书可以递交的日期则完全是不同的两回事，正如在一个伦敦仲裁案中所说的那样：

　　往往会有人误认为：根据租船合同，在装卸时间起算前，不能递交准备就绪通知书。这种看法是不正确的，除非有明示条文这样规定。若无这种规定，有效的通知书可以在任何时刻递交，但装卸时间却不能在租船合同所明确规定的日期之前起算。

　　这在The Front Commander案中，Rix大法官进一步确认。但，这并不意味着可以忽视租船合同中任何条文规定，例如关于通知书应在办公时间内递交的规定，这种规定仍然必须要遵照执行。如果租船合同中规定装卸时间从一个明确规定的时间开始起算，则它应该从受载期开始后的那个时间起算，当然，如果还有其他的限制条件，比如，这还得是工作日，也必须得满足这种条件。

　　3.266 In an analogous situation, in London Arbitration 9/90 the tribunal held that in a charter where the charterers were entitled to use the vessel for floating storage between loading and discharging, nevertheless the owners were entitled to present notice of readiness for discharge whilst the vessel was still performing storage services.

　　3.266在报道的伦敦仲裁1990年第9号案中，也是类似情况。仲裁庭裁定：当租船合同中规定承租人有权在装货和卸货期间将船舶用作浮动仓库时，尽管如此，在该轮仍在用作为仓库使用期间，船东是有权递交卸货准备就绪通知书。

　　Correctness of notice of readiness 准备就绪通知书的正确性

　　3.267 Where a notice of readiness is required either at common law (at first load port) or by the terms of the charter, then when it is given the vessel concerned must have arrived at her specified destination (or have met the requirements of any clause advancing commencement of laytime), must then be in a state of readiness to load or discharge and must have fulfilled any additional requirements e.g. entry at Custom House.

　　3.267不论是普通法(就第一装港而言)，还是租船合同条款所要求的准备就绪通知书，在递交时，所涉及的船舶必须已经抵达指定的目的地（或者满足提前起算装卸时间的任何条款），必须处于装卸准备就绪的状态，而且必须符合任何其他各项的规定要求，例如在海关已经报关登记等。

　　3.268 In relation to a laytime clause which read:

　　Lay days at first loading port to commence twenty-hours, Sundays and holidays excepted, after receipt by charterers or their agents of master’s written notice during ordinary working hours, that steamer is entered at the Custom House and in all respects ready to load.

　　as McNair J said succinctly in Graigwen (Owners) v. Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co Ltd:

　　Clearly, although the clause only relates the commencement of the lay days to the giving of notice, the facts stated in the notice, namely the entry at the Custom House and readiness, must also be true at the time the notice is given.

　　It is also worth mentioning that the vessel must be where she purports to be and as already said, where she is required to be before notice can be given.

　　3.268有关的装卸时间条款规定如下：

　　装卸时间是在第一个装货港的正常工作时间内，承租人或其代理人收到船长递交的书面准备就绪通知书，表明船舶已经完成报关登记手续而且已在所有各个方面做好装货准备后24小时开始起算，星期日和节假日除外。

　　如McNair法官在Graigwen (Owners) v. Anglo-Canadian Shipping CoLtd一案中简要地说：

　　显然，尽管该条款仅是关于装卸时间的起算，也提到了递交准备就绪通知书，在通知书中载明的事实，即，报关登记和准备就绪等，也必须在递交通知书的当时是真实无误的。

　　这还有必要提醒的是，船舶必须位于她所声称的地方和如同上文所说的那样，这是准备就绪通知书能够递交之前所要求的她抵达的地方。

　　3.269 In Government of Ceylon v. Societe Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis (The Massalia (No 2)), however, Diplock J was prepared to hold that a notice of readiness given before it was possible to discharge the cargo to which it related should take effect when the vessel was ready to discharge that cargo. Furthermore, he held that a provision in the notice clause that time should commence at a specified time need not be followed since charterers were already unloading at other hatches.

　　3.269在Government of Ceylon v. Societe Franco-Tunisienne d’Armement-Tunis (The Massalia(No.2))案，然而，Diplock 法官却做出判决：准备就绪通知书可以在可能进行卸货之前递交，当船舶在做好卸货准备时生效。另外，他还判定，因为承租人已在其他舱口开始提前卸货，在通知书条款中关于时间起算的条文也就没有必要再遵守了。

　　3.270 The facts of the case were that a vessel was chartered with a part cargo of flour from Antwerp and Bordeaux to Colombo. The owners were given liberty to complete with other cargo, which they did, overstowing the flour in most of the holds. The laytime commencement clause at the discharge port provided for: ‘‘Time to commence at 2 p.m. if notice of readiness to discharge is given before noon, and at 08 00 next working day if notice given during office hours after noon.’’ At 09 00 on the day of her arrival, the Massalia gave notice. Six days later, discharge of the flour and overstowed cargo began and all the flour cargo was accessible three days after that. It was only then, said Diplock J, that laytime commenced since the notice referred to in the laytime commencement clause was a notice of readiness to discharge flour.

　　3.270该案的事实是：该轮出租由比利时安特卫普和法国波尔多往斯里兰卡科伦坡运输一部分面粉货物。舶东有权自由加载运输其他货物，他也确实这样做了。在大部分舱，面粉发生倒装，其上面都有其他货物。在卸货港的装卸时间起算条款规定：‘如果卸货准备就绪通知书在中午前递交的话，则卸货时间从下午2点起算；或者如果通知书在午后的办公时间递交的话，卸货时间则在下一工作日的上午8点起算。’MassaKa轮在抵达的当日上午9点就递交了通知书。6天后才开始卸这批面粉以及面粉上面所装的货物，3天后，所有这批面粉才全部暴露出来可以一起卸。于是，Diplock法官说：既然在装卸时间起算的条款中所指的是卸面粉的准备就绪通知书，所以，只有到了这个时候，装卸时间才能起算。

　　3.271 Of this case, Donaldson J said in Christensen v. Hindustan Steel Ltd:

　　In reaching this decision that learned judge relied upon an unidentified authority which no one has been able to trace. He was also much influenced by the fact that the charterers were apparently the consignees of the overstowed cargo and so needed no notice of readiness. In my judgment, this decision turned upon very special facts and does not cast doubt upon the general rule that a notice of readiness is wholly ineffective if, subject to minimal qualifications, the vessel is not ready to discharge at the time at which it is given.

　　3.271针对上一个案例，Donaldson法官在 Christensen v. Hindustan Steel Ltd—案中说：

　　这位博学的法官（尊称）依据一个没有人能够找到的未经确认的先例做出了这样一个判决。她深受承租人明显也是在上面倒装货物的收货人这一事实的影响，所以就不需要准备就绪通知书了。在我看来，这个判决是基于一个非常特殊的事实，也并没有怀疑准备就绪通知书总的基本原则：如果，即使是由于极微小的条件限制，船舶在递交通知书的当时还没有做好卸货准备，通知书也是完全无效的。
　　

　　《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）