《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

CHAPTER 3 第3章

Commencement of laytime

装卸时间的起算

3.456 Charterers, as in the previous case, sought to argue that arrival meant that the vessel had to be an Arrived ship, but again this contention was rejected, the judge finding that arrival was used in the popular sense of that word as opposed to the technical meaning it had in connection with when a vessel became an Arrived ship. Commenting on this aspect, Roskill J said:

I think as a matter of ordinary common sense if one asked two businessmen if a ship had arrived at Lourenco Marques when she reported at the pilot station in that way and in those circumstances they would answer: ‘‘Yes, she has arrived there’’, notwithstanding that she had not yet got within the commercial limits of the port.

On the meaning of ‘‘reachable’’, he said:

‘‘Reachable’’ as a matter of grammar means ‘‘able to be reached’’. There may be many reasons why a particular berth or discharging place cannot be reached. It may be because another ship is occupying it; it may be because there is an obstruction between where the ship is and where she wishes to go; it may be because there is not a sufficiency of water to enable her to get there. The existence of any of those obstacles can prevent a particular berth or dock being reachable and in my judgment a particular berth or dock is just as much not reachable if there is not enough water to enable the vessel to traverse the distance from where she is to that place as if there were a ship occupying that place at the material time. Accordingly, in my judgment, the charterers’ obligation was to nominate a berth which the vessel could reach on arrival and they are in breach of that obligation if they are unable so to do.

3.456承租人，如同前例一样，企图争辩，‘抵达’指的是船舶必须成为抵达船，但再一次被法官驳回。法官认定：这里所谓的抵达是这个词的通常意思，这同一艘已成为抵达船有关的技术上的含义是相对而言的。关于这点，Roskill法官是这样解释的：

我想，按照一般的常识，如果一个好事的第三者用这种方式询问两个商人：当船舶报告已抵达了引水站，她是否应算已抵达了Lourenco Marques马布托港呢？在这种情形下，他们会答到：‘是的，她已抵达那里’，尽管该轮还未进入该港的商业区域范围内。.

有关‘可靠泊的’的含义，他说：

‘可靠泊’按照语法上的解释应为‘能够靠泊’。当然，某一具体泊位或卸货地不能靠泊的原因可能有很多。或许是有别的船在占用着；或许在该轮所处的位置与她想去的位置之间存在着某种障碍；或许由于水深不足使她无法前往那里。上面任一种障碍都会使得那个泊位或码头无法靠泊。所以，我判断，如果这里没有足够水深而致使船舶不能通过从锚地到泊位或码头这段距离，该泊位或码头恰好就是不能靠泊的，就好像当时有船在那儿占用一样。因此，在我看来，承租人的义务就是指定一个船舶一到就能靠上的泊位，如果他做不到这一点，就是没有履行此项义务。

3.457 The judge also pointed out that, in some cases, of which the present one was an example, a breach might arise without the fault of either party, but nevertheless even in those circumstances, as a matter of construction, the clause provided that loss of time should fall on the charterers and not the owners.

3.457法官接着又指出：在一些案例中，比如目前的这一个，这种违约可能双方当事人并没有过错，但无论怎样，即使在这些情况下，根据合同解释，条款规定这一时间损失应该落在承租人的身上，而不是船东。

3.458 Later in his judgment, he went on to consider when the charterers’ liability ended. On the day when the ship was able to cross the bar, she began to move at 0130, anchored again at 0400 within the port and gave notice of readiness at 1100. The charterers argued that, even if the judge was against them on the principal issue, nevertheless their liability should not extend beyond 0400, when the vessel re-anchored to await a berth. However, on this point the judge also ruled against them, holding that the owners had not unreasonably delayed before giving notice, but, he continued:

I am not saying that if in another case it could be shown that the owners or the master has wrongly delayed giving notice of readiness the position might not be otherwise. That does not arise in the present case.

Roskill J therefore concluded that the President Brand had been delayed from her arrival at the Pilot Station at 08 00 on 19 April until 1100 on 23 April by the charterers’ failure to procure a berth, reachable on arrival, for which damages for detention calculated at the demurrage rate were payable. From that period, however, there was to be deducted the 2 1/2 hours between 0130 and 0400 on 23 April, during which the ship crossed the bar and moved into port. This was not, said the judge, time which was lost by the charterers’ breach, but time which would have been occupied in any event coming into port had the vessel not been held up at the bar.

3.458在其判决书的后面，他又谈到了承租人的这种义务何时结束的问题。在该轮能够通过浅滩的那天，0130开始前进，0400在港内再次抛锚，1100递交了准备就绪通知书。承租人争辩说，即使法官在这一问题上否定了他们的意见，但无论怎样，他们的责任期限也会延伸超过0400，即该轮再次拋锚等泊的时候。然而，在这一点上，法官也做出对他们不利的判决：在递交通知书之前，船东没有不合理的拖延。但，他补充道：

我并不是说，如果在其它案件中能够证明船东或船长错误地拖延了递交准备就绪通知书，情况就会不一样。但这样的事在目前这个案件中并没有发生。

因此，Roskill法官下结论说：由于承租人未能获取一个使船舶一到即靠泊的泊位，导致了该轮4月19日0800抵达引水站直到4月23日1100之间发生延迟，这种滞期延迟损失应按滞期费率计算和支付。然而，从这段时间，4月23日0130至0400之间应扣除2. 5小时，因为在这期间该轮是在通过浅滩进港。法官说，这不是承租人违约造成的时间损失，但，无论如何，这段2.5小时的时间都是船舶要进港本应花费的时间，如果船舶并没有被浅滩阻滞的话。