精彩海运视频，极具深度的专栏文章和海量的市场分析报告，以及指数、油价和气象信息

　　《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

　　CHAPTER 3 第3章

　　Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

　　Readiness under GAFTA f.o.b. contracts

　　在GAFTA f.o.b.合同下的准备就绪通知书

　　3.353拒绝接受双方有更改租船合同条文的任何协议这一观点后，Diplock法官将注意力集中到上议院对Nelson & Sons v. Nelson Line Liverpool Ltd(No 3)—案的判决上，同时他也不同意上诉法院Fletcher Moulton大法官对此案所作出的判决，后者曾提出一个原则是，法院应尝试着推断出这类双边协议，同时对轻率进行协议推断提出警告。在判决中他接着又说：

　　鉴于承租人在凌晨02:30开始卸货，船东的雇员又协助他这样做，在此，我也看不到有任何理由能够促使我推断出这一协议，说他们订有协议，装卸时间应从此时起算……同样，我也找不到有任何理由能够使我有权判定承租人已经放弃了权利。

　　他又补充道，有关时间起算和通知书的条款不单单是为了承租人的利益的条款，当然也不是在任何情况下弃权原理都可以适用的条款。

　　3.354 In London Arbitration 1/97, the laycan clause of a Baltimore berth form C charter had been amended by the addition of the following:

　　Owners option to tender prior to Laydays but time to commence as per charterparty. Prior time used to count as laytime.

　　The vessel arrived after the opening of the laycan spread and tendered notice of readiness at 09 50. Loading started at 17 00 on the same day. The charterers contended that laytime started at 08 00 the following day as provided for elsewhere in the charter but the owners successfully argued that time should count from when loading started on the basis that ‘‘prior time’’ meant time before laytime would otherwise commence and not time before the laydays/cancelling period started.

　　3.354在报道的伦敦仲裁1997年第1号案，是根据Baltime格式C泊位租船合同范本修改过的有关受载期的附加条款，规定如下：

　　船东有权选择在受载期（laydays）之前递交准备就绪通知书，然而，装卸时间的计算以租船合同为准。在此之前所使用的时间计入装卸时间。

　　船舶在受载期初始阶段抵达并在0950时递交了准备就绪通知书。在当天1700时开始装货。承租人声称装卸时间应按租船合同规定从第二天0800时开始计算，而船东却成功争辩说装卸时间应从装货开始时开始起算，依据是‘之前的时间’意思是指装卸时间开始之前的时间，而不是受载期/销约期开始之前的时间。

　　3.355 Tanker charters in particular often have an early loading clause providing for the charterers to allow loading prior to the commencement of laydays, in which event the charterers are to have the beneﬁt of the time saved. Amongst charters that so provide is the Shellvoy 5 form. In London Arbitration 27/04, the printed form of charter had been amended to refer to the time saved being that which counted under the charterparty terms. The charterers argued that, even though loading was completed before the start of the laydays, they were entitled to the full period from commencement of the laydays until the start of the laydays. Whilst criticising the drafting, the tribunal held that, as the owners said, the time the beneﬁt to which the charterers were entitled was only the time prior to laydays before loading was completed.

　　3.355尤其是油轮租船往往有一个提前装货的条款规定：允许承租人在受载期开始之前装载货物，在任何情况下承租人都可享有节省时间的利益。在这些租船合同中，Shellvoy 5格式范本是如此规定的。在伦敦仲裁2004年第27号案中，在涉及到节省的时间时，印就格式的租船合同被修改为‘按照租船合同条文计入’。承租人争辩道，即使在受载期开始（5月8日0001时）之前完成装货作业（5月7日0600时），他们也有权获得从装卸时间起算（5月6日1430时）直到受载期开始（5月8日0001时）全部这段时间的利益。

　　仲裁庭批评说条文拟定的模糊不清，并裁定支持船东所讲的观点，承租人有权获得的时间好处仅是在受载期（5月8日0001时）开始之前，截止到装货完成之时（5月7日0600时）的时间好处。

　　3.356 In The Front Commander the Court of Appeal, reversing a decision of the High Court, held that, in relation to loading before the laytime commencement date, the charterers—having conﬁrmed in the case in question that notice of readiness should be tendered on arrival at the load port and that she should berth/load as soon as instructed—had agreed to laytime starting before the laytime commencement date speciﬁed in the charter. The charterers’ principal argument was that the charter required not only their agreement to notice of readiness being tendered in advance of the laytime commencement date and the vessel berthing and loading commencing, but their separate consent in writing to laytime commencing earlier, an argument rejected by the court. The charterers relied upon The Khios Breeze, but commenting on this decision, Lord Justice Rix, who gave the principal judgment, said that this case did not throw any light on the different clauses and facts of this case. He continued:

　　At most it says that the charterer’s use of the vessel prior to the giving of a notice of readiness and the expiry of the contractual notice time is not, without more, in the charterer’s time. An agreement contrary to the terms of the charter could not be inferred, nor could a waiver.

　　The court also held that:

　　—if a vessel arrives before the laytime commencement date, the charterer cannot require her to load early and the requirement in clause 1 of Part II of the Asbatankvoy form does not require the contrary. However clause 6 of the same form requires an owner to give notice of readiness upon arrival and although there is no automatic breach if he is not immediately ready to load on arrival, if he is ready, he is obliged to give notice, even if he has arrived early.

　　—A notice of readiness may be given prior to the earliest layday to enable the notice period to have run before the start of the earliest layday.

　　—If an owner does give notice, he cannot refuse to load early if so ordered by the charterer.

　　3.356在The Front Commander案，上诉法院推翻了高院的判决，裁定：就合同规定的装卸时间起算日之前，实际已经开始装货的情况，承租人——在本案已经确认有关通知书应当在到达装货港时递交，而且，很快指示其靠泊/装货——已经同意在租船合同中规定的装卸时间起算日之前可以开始计算装卸时间了。承租人主要的争论是：租船合同不仅要求他们同意在装卸时间起算日之前递交通知书以及靠泊开始装货，而且还要另外单独的书面文书同意提早起算装卸时间。法院驳回这一观点。承租人也依赖The Khios Breeze案例的判决，但Rix大法官在由他做出主要判决词中对此评论道，那个案例并没有弄清楚合同条文和案件事实之间的区别。他接着又说：

　　至多可以说，在通知书递交之前和合约规定的通知时间届满时之前，承租人（已经开始）使用船舶，但这段时间还不能计入承租人的时间。是不能推断存在有任何与租船合同条文相矛盾的协议，也不存在有弃权行为。

　　法庭还认为：

　　——如果船舶在装卸时间起算日之前抵达，承租人不能要求她提早装货，而且Asbatankvoy格式范本（该案使用的租船合同）第II部分第1条款并没有规定相反的条件。然而，该格式中第6条款要求船东抵达时递交通知书，尽管还不存在自动违约，如果船舶在抵达时还没有立即准备就绪的话；但如果船舶准备就绪，就有责任递交通知书，即使是提前到达。

　　——通知书可以在最早的受载日（期）之前递交，以便在最早的受载日到来之前就开始起算通知时间。

　　——如果船东的确递交了通知书，如果承租人指示装货，他不能拒绝提早装货。
　　