《裝卸時間與滯期費》第3章-裝卸時間的起算-連載32

點擊上方藍色字體關注我們！

《裝卸時間與滯期費》第6版

CHAPTER 3 第3章

Commencement of laytime 裝卸時間的起算

CHAPTER 3 第3章

Commencement of laytime

裝卸時間的起算

3.243 In the first case, the owners tendered notice of readiness at 08 50 hours one Saturday morning in Lisbon. The arbitrator said it was necessary to consider local circumstances and other provisions in the charter relating to laytime. The evidence on the former showed that the port was open on Saturday mornings and all port authorities available, stevedoring was charged at premium rates, all shipping agents were closed, except for those attending vessels, and the majority of, if not all, importers/exporters were closed. Other provisions in the charter included the exclusion of Saturday afternoon and Sunday from laytime. More weight, said the arbitrator, had to be given to the evidence relating to business offices, rather than to the hours which the port authorities and stevedores had to work. Therefore, written notice of readiness could not be received until Monday morning as the receivers』 office was closed on Saturday.

3.243第一個案例，在葡萄牙里斯本港，船東是在一個星期六上午的0850遞交的準備就緒通知書。仲裁員認為有必要參考一下當地的情況和租船合同中有關裝卸時間的其他規定。第一種情況有證據顯示該港在星期六上午照常作業，所有的港口當局都上班，裝卸作業要加收額外費用。但是，除了那些代理有事登輪之外，所有的航運代理均不上班，而且，如果不是全部，也是大多數的進/出口商都關門休息。租船合同的其他條款規定包括在裝卸時間中扣除星期六下午和星期日。仲裁員認為：有關商業部門工作時間應給予更大的分量，而不是港口當局和裝卸工的工作時間。因此，書面的準備就緒通知書直到星期一上午才能被接收，因為收貨人的辦公室在星期六關門休息。

3.244 The second case concerns a vessel which arrived at the Mersey Bar at 03 09 one Saturday. Notice of readiness was given by telex to the charterers』 agents at 09 55 and to the charterers themselves at 10 00. However, neither the charterers』 nor their agents』 offices were open. The charter contained two provisions relating to giving notice. The first allowed for notice to be given on Saturday mornings before 12 00 if the vessel had been entered at the Custom House. The second said simply that notice was to be given during ordinary office hours, whether the vessel had been entered at the Custom House or not. The issue between the parties was whether the two clauses were linked, so that the times specified in the first indicated what was meant by ordinary office hours, or whether they were completely separate, providing different criteria depending on whether the vessel had been entered at the Custom House or not. There was also a clause in the charter relating to the vessel giving notice when approaching Land』s End and the charterers thereupon giving orders for discharge.

3.244第二個案例中的有關船舶是在一個星期六的0309抵達英國Mersey/默西河口沙洲。準備就緒通知書通過電傳於0955遞交給承租人的代理人，並於1000遞交給了承租人本人。然而，這時無論是承租人還是其代理的辦公室均未辦公。在租船合同中有兩條有關遞交通知書的規定。第一條規定是允許在星期六的上午1200之前遞交通知書，如果船舶已經在海關被登記報關了。第二條簡單地說不論船舶是否已在海關登記報關，通知書都是在正常辦公時間內遞交。當事雙方之間的爭議是：這兩個條款之間是否有聯繫，也就是說，在第一條中規定的時間顯示是指正常的辦公時間；或者是，這二條是完全獨立的，根據船舶是否已經報關，提出了不同的標準。在租船合同中還有一相關的條款是：當船舶臨近英國西南Lands角時應遞交通知書，在此之後承租人即下達卸貨指示。

3.245 On these facts, the arbitrators held that the notice given on Saturday morning was a good notice. It was clear from the clause relating to giving notice when the vessel had been entered at the Custom House and the clause dealing with giving notice off Land』s End that the charterers looked upon Saturday morning as being good for the tendering of notices.

3.245基於這些事實，仲裁員裁定：在星期六上午遞交的通知書是有效的。這明顯從『當遞交通知書時船舶已經在海關登記報關的條款，以及船舶在Land角處遞交通知書的條款』中，可以得出承租人把星期六的上午遞交通知書看做是恰當時間。

3.246 In a slightly different set of circumstances, the tribunal held in London Arbitration 8/95 that a provision that referred to notice of readiness being given between business hours of 00 01 and 24 00, meant literally that and notice could validly be given at any time even on Saturday 26 December which was not an official holiday at the port in question.

3.246在報道的倫敦仲裁1995年第8號案中，其案情背景稍有不同。仲裁庭裁定：規定準備就緒通知書應該在0001到2400的營業時間內遞交這一條文，應照字面意思解釋，即是通知書可以在任何時間內遞交，甚至在12月26日星期六那天遞交也是有效的，因為在該港這一天並不是官方節假日。

3.247 Another example of what constitutes 『『ordinary office hours』』 is provided by London Arbitration 13/02, where the tribunal held that it was the office hours of port agents generally at the port of Lagos (the port in question) that were applicable, rather than the office hours of the agents for the ship in question, who opened half an hour earlier than most of the other agents.

3.247由報道的倫敦仲裁2002年第13號案提供又一個例子是，『普通辦公時間』是由哪些時間構成的。在該案，仲裁庭裁定：這是普遍適用於Lagos港（所爭議的尼日利亞港口）的港口代理的辦公時間，而不是專門為所爭議的船舶服務的代理的工作時間，因為他比大多數其他代理提早半個小時開門營業。

3.248 In Pacific Carriers Corporation v. Tradax Export SA (The North King), the North King was chartered for a voyage from one safe US port, for which the charterers subsequently nominated Baton Rouge, Louisiana, as the load port. The notice clause of the charter required notification of the vessel』s readiness to be delivered at the office of the charterers or their agents 『『at or before 4 p.m. (or at or before 12 noon if on Saturday)』』. The owners』 agents therefore tendered notice of readiness at 09 00 on Saturday 1 November. However, that Saturday was All Saints』 Day and a public holiday and the charterers contended that the notice was only deemed to be effectively tendered on the following Monday.

3.248在Pacific Carriers Corporation v. Tradax Export SA (The North King) 案中，North King輪出租一個航次前往美國的一個安全港口，隨後承租人指定路易斯安那州的Baton Rouge（在Mississippi River上游）為裝貨港。租船合同中的通知書條款要求船舶在『下午4點或下午4點之前(或者星期六的中午12點或12點之前)』將準備就緒通知書遞交到承租人或其代理人的辦公室。因此，船東的代理在11月1日星期六的上午9點遞交了準備就緒通知書。然而，那個星期六恰好是萬聖節和公眾假期，承租人辯稱該通知書僅能看作是在接下來的星期一有效遞交的。

3.249 The umpire in the arbitration proceedings and Mocatta J in the High Court both side-stepped the issue as to whether the notice provision allowed notification to be given on a public holiday, an excepted period, by finding that the parties had separately agreed that notice on behalf of the vessel should be accepted on the Saturday morning. However, the umpire also pointed out that no evidence had been adduced to the effect that it was unlawful by the laws of the State of Louisiana to carry on business on All Saints』 Day or any other public holiday and he found that it was not unlawful for the notice of readiness to be tendered or accepted on that day. It presumably follows from this that, apart from the notice clause in the charter, it would have been perfectly valid for notice to be given on a holiday or other excepted period.

3.249在仲裁訴訟中的公斷人和高等法院的Mocatta法官均迴避了通知書條款是否允許在公眾假期，這一除外期間內遞交通知書這樣一個爭議，而認定：當事雙方已經分別同意應該在星期六上午接受代表船方遞交的通知書。然而，公斷人還指出：根據路易斯安那州的法律，沒有證據引證在萬聖節或其他任何公眾假期營業是非法，進而他認定：在那天遞交和接受準備就緒通知書不是不合法的。據此，拋開租船合同中的通知書條款，大概可以得出：在節假日或其他除外期間內遞交的通知書是完全有效的。

3.250 On the meaning of the specific provision relating to notice in the charter, the umpire said he was inclined to think that by necessary implication from the express words of the clause, a valid notice of readiness could not ordinarily be given on a Sunday or a holiday or any other day which is not a business day. The judge contented himself with saying that if it was not for the question of the agreement between the parties, the decision would have turned upon interesting points in relation to the construction of the clauses of the charterparty.

3.250按照租船合同中有關通知書的特殊條文規定的含義，公斷人說，他傾向認為從該條款明示文字中有必要默示，一個有效的裝卸準備就緒通知書通常是不能在星期天或者節假日或者其他非工作日遞交的。法官自己也辯解說，如果不是當事人之間的協議的問題，這一判決本應該轉移到對該租船合同條款的解釋這一有趣的問題上。

3.251 Perhaps the leading case where the question of notices being tendered outside the hours stipulated in the charterparty was considered was The Petr Schmidt. The clause in question required notices to be tendered 『『within 06 00 and 17 00 local time』』.

3.251對於在租船合同中規定的時間之外遞交準備就緒通知書的問題進行深入探討，也許就是The Petr Schmidt這一著名的案例了。所爭議的條款規定要求通知書是在『當地時間0600-1700之間』遞交。

3.252 After referring to The Mexico I, Longmore J continued:

Mr Hamblen』s submission requires as its foundation that the notices of readiness in the present case were invalid and a ity in the sense used in the decided cases. I do not think that they were. In the present case the ship was ready when the notices of readiness were given. They were notices which stated the truth viz. that the vessel was ready to load or discharge as the case might be. The only thing wrong about the notices was the time that they were tendered, which was outside the contractual hours as specified in the contract. To say that such notices were invalid and must therefore be ities begs the question. They were accurate but non-contractual in the sense that they were tendered outside the contractual hours. To my mind that does not make them invalid notices in the sense of being ities; timing provisions have nothing to do with whether notices are ities. It is only if a notice is untrue that it makes sense to say that it is invalid in the sense of being a ity.

An 『『invalid』』 notice of readiness is a phrase of ambiguous meaning. It makes sense to say that an untruthful or inaccurate notice is invalid. It is not surprising that the courts have held that such a notice has no legal effect and is to be treated as a ity. It may in a sense be correct to say that a notice given outside the contractual hours is invalid but only in the sense that it does not comply with the contract. It does not follow that the courts should hold that a premature notice of readiness is a ity and of no effect. The fact that there are good reasons for holding an inaccurate notice to be of no effect (viz. the charterer cannot know when it will become accurate) does not of itself mean that there are similarly good reasons for holding an untimely notice to be of no effect. There is in my view no good reason why the notice should not be effective as at the time which the contract fixes for it to be tendered.

3.252在參考了The MexicoI 案後，Longmore法官繼續說：

Hamblen先生（承租人的大律師）的辯護意見，要求以已判決的先例中的意義作為依據，該案中的通知書是無效和一場空的。我不認為是這樣。在本案，當船舶遞交準備就緒通知書時她已經做好了準備。通知書說明了事實真相，即是船舶已經做好裝卸貨準備。唯一不妥的就是它沒有在租船合同規定的合約時間內遞交。說是通知書無效，因而必定是一場空，這是迴避問題的實質而亂下結論。它們這些通知書是準確的（事實反映），但是非合約性的，意思是說它們是在合同規定的時間之外遞交的。對我來說，這並不能使之無效而變成空忙一場；時間條文與通知書是否是作廢之間並沒有任何關係。只有在通知書是不真實的情況下，這時才能說無效的，某種意義上是變成一場空。

『無效的』通知書是一個意義含糊不清的短語。如果說不真實或者不準確的通知書是無效的，這完全講得通。這也難怪法院會判定這類通知書是沒有法律效力並被視為是一場空。說一個通知書是在合同規定的時間外也是無效，某種意義上也算正確，但這僅限於沒有完全遵照合同規定。但這種無效並不能得出法院也要判定這過早的通知書也是一場空和沒有法律效力。事實上，這有很好的理由判定一個不準確的通知書是沒有法律效力（即是，承租人無法知道通知書何時才變得正確有效，這就是需要船東另去給一個有效的通知書的原因），但，這種事實本身並不代表這有充分的理由同樣也適用於判定一個過早的通知書也應該是沒有法律效力。我認為，同樣是在合同已經規定通知書遞交的時間情況下，這也沒有合適的理由為什麼這種通知書就應該是無效的。

3.253 The charterers subsequently unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the principal judgment was give Lord Justice Evans, who held as his primary reason for dismissing the appeal that the notice was tendered at 06 00 when the office opened. Having quoted the passage cited above, Evans LJ then went on to say:

Mr Hamblen (for the Charterers) submitted to us that the Judge was wrong to introduce the distinction between invalidity for what may be called a substantive reason i.e. because the notice is incorrect in a material respect and a notice which although valid in itself is tendered in breach of some 『『time provision』』 as to when a valid notice may be tendered.

He later said:

I am inclined to agree with Mr Hamblen that a notice which is tendered outside the hours permitted by cl. 30 is non-contractual and cannot be relied upon as a 『『valid』』 notice, meaning effective to start the time clock running for loading or discharge as the case may be. If a notice was taken to the charterers』 offices at (say) 18 00 and then taken away, then I would not regard that as a tender which became effective on the following day. If Mr Justice Longmore intended to cover such a case when he said that 『『the only thing wrong about the notices was the time that they were tendered』』, yet such notices were valid at that time, then I would disagree with him, but I do not think that he did. Notices outside the permitted hours were non-contractual and therefore 『『wrong』』. I do not see how they can be relied upon as having contractual effect at the time of tender. Whether the defect is 『『cured』』 by the passage of time is a question of fact rather than law.

The answer to the submission in the present case therefore, depends on the facts that the notice was given in writing and by means which were equivalent to leaving it in the offices to be attended to at 06 00 on the following day. This is essentially the same reason as I have given for rejecting the first submission. Here, there was a tender at 06 00 whether or not there was previously a tender at the time when the telex or fax message was sent.

Peter Gibson LJ, having said that he entirely agreed with the reasons given by Evans LJ for dismissing the appeal, in answer to an argument from Mr Hamblen that because a breach of the time limits relating to presentation of notice of readiness could not give rise to a claim in damages, therefore the time limits must be complied with strictly, said:

That simply does not follow. For example, the failure to adhere to a rent review time table may be a breach of contract not compensatable in damages, but that does not make that timetable of the essence of the contract (United Scientific Holdings Ltd v. Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904). A notice given outside the period provided for contractually may be 『『uncontractual』』, but it does not follow that it is a ity, unless the circumstances of the contract or the subject-matter make it essential that the notice should be given within that period.』』

Sir Christopher Slade, the third member of the court agreed with the previous two judgments and added:

Laytime under this charterparty was pressed to begin on the expiration of six hours after receipt of the notice of readiness. The commercial purpose of the second sentence of cl. 30, as I would infer, must have been to ensure that the charterers or their agents should not be saddled with the receipt of a notice of readiness, and the consequent commencement of laytime, between 17 00 hours and 06 00 hours, that is to say outside what might be regarded as office hours.

The primary conclusion reached by Lord Justice Evans namely that on the facts of the present case there was a 『『tender』』 at 06 00, is in my judgment entirely consistent not only with this commercial purpose but also with the wording of cl. 6 and 30, which I think should be read together. The wording of cl. 6 makes it clear that the time of the giving of the notice plus the receipt thereof are the relevant factors for the purpose of the clause.

On this basis, I do not regard the notices of readiness in the present case as 『『non-contractual』』 (i.e. as having been originally 『『tendered』』 outside the permitted hours). But even if they did not comply with the strict wording of cl. 30, I think that they still fall to be treated as valid notices for the reasons given by Lord Justice Evans and Lord Justice Peter Gibson.

I would therefore concur in dismissing this appeal and upholding the arbitrators』 award.

3.253 承租人隨後上訴到上訴法院，也沒有勝訴。由Evans大法官給出主要的判詞，他判決道，作為駁回這一上訴的首要原因是通知書在0600遞交時辦公室已經開始工作了。在援引了上文引述的片段後，他繼續說：

Hamblen先生（承租人大律師）提交給我們的辯護詞說，法官是錯誤地採信了無效的通知書和有效性通知書二者之間區別，即，無效性是由於可能被稱之為實質性的原因，例如在某一重要的方面通知書是不正確的，而遞交的通知書本身是有效的，儘管是違反了有效通知書遞交的『時間條文』。

他後來接着又說：

我傾向於認同Hamblen先生所說的，根據第30條款，在許可的時間之外遞交的通知書是非合同規定的，並且不能相信是『有效的』通知書，這意思是有效性的通知書是用來啟動裝卸時間時鐘運行的，視情況而定。如果通知書（說）是在1800送到承租人的辦公室，接着又拿走了，那麼，我不認為這樣的遞交在第2天會變得有效。如果Longmore法官意圖是包括他說的那種情況，即是『唯一錯誤的是通知書遞交的時間不對』，然而在那個時候通知書還是有效的，那麼，我就不會認同他的觀點，但我不認為他會那樣判決。在許可的時間之外遞交的通知書是不符合合同規定的，因此是『錯誤的』。我並沒有看到他們會在遞交當時相信通知書具有合同效力。這一缺點是否隨着時間的流逝而『消除』，這是事實問題，而不是法律問題。

因此，在該案，對他提出的觀點的回答取決於書面遞交的通知書的真實情況，還有，用書面形式等同於把通知書留在辦公室直到第2天0600時有人上班。基本上，我給出的是同樣的理由拒絕他開始爭論的觀點。在此，就變成了當時在0600點鐘，用電傳或傳真即時發出的通知書是否是過早的遞交的問題了。

Peter Gibson大法官也說道，他完全認同Evans大法官駁回上訴時給出的理由，並回答了Hamblen先生提出的爭議——即是違反遞交準備就緒通知書有關的時間限制是不能夠給予損失索賠，因此時間限制必須嚴格遵守，說：

這簡直就是不能得出這樣的結論。例如，未能遵守租金支付時間表去按時支付租金，可能是違約，但在損失上並不是可以賠償的，因為（違約）沒有導致時間表成為合同的根本基礎（United Scientific Holdings Ltd v. Burnley Borough Council [1978] AC 904，該案未對支付租金違約方面做出規定）。在合同規定的時間之外遞交通知書可能是『違反合同的』，但這並不能得出它是一場空，除非根據合同的背景或合同標的得出結論說，通知書在給定的時間內遞交是合同的根本性基礎。

Christopher Slade爵士，該案中的第3名大法官也同意上述2名大法官的判詞，並補充說：

根據租船合同，裝卸時間被強迫規定在收到準備就緒通知書之後滿6個小時才開始起算。據我推斷，第30條款第2句話的商業目的本應該是保證承租人或其代理人不會在收到準備就緒通知書之後負擔過重（留有6個小時的準備時間），而且接下來裝卸時間的起算是在1700至第二天的0600，即是說，這位於所謂的上班工作時間之外了。

由Evans大法官得出的基本結論意思是，根據該案的事實情況，在0600遞交通知書，依我判斷，不僅完全符合商業目的而且也完全符合第6條款和第30條款的措辭，同時我也認為它們應該在一起共同解讀。第6條款的措辭明顯表示出通知書遞交的時間，還要加上接受它也是該條款考慮的一個相關因素。

在此基礎上，我不認為本案中的準備就緒通知書是『違反合同的』（即把初始遞交的通知書當做是在允許時間之外『（無效）遞交的』）。然而，即使他們沒有嚴格遵守第30條款的措辭，我認為他們仍然是被視為有效的通知書，已由Evans大法官和Peter Gibson大法官給出其原因。

因此，我也同意駁回這一上訴，維持了仲裁員的裁決。

3.254 It would seem therefore that if a written notice of readiness is given to the charterers or their agents outside office hours, where there is a provision requiring it to be given in office hours, then such notice will be deemed to have been tendered at the commencement of office hours on the next working day. The tribunal so found in London Arbitration 11/08.

3.254因此，似乎是，如果準備就緒通知書是在上班工作時間之外遞交給承租人或其代理人，儘管有規定要求在辦公時間內遞交通知書，那麼，該通知書往往會被看作是在下一個工作日的辦公時間開始時遞交的。在報道的倫敦仲裁2008年第11號案也是這樣認定的。

請戳文末留言區上方"閱讀原文"進入鏈接，查看該書詳情或購買。

作者：魏長庚，1977年8月18日生，籍貫河南省商丘地區睢縣，自1996-2000 年在大連海事大學學習。在校期間取得航海技術專業學士學位，國家英語考試六級證書。16年海上遠洋船舶航行經驗，7條船(包括20多萬噸的Cape size好望角型船舶)遠洋船長資歷。本人一直熱愛海商法（重點是英國海商法）的學習，並致力海商法的翻譯工作。已經出版《船舶買賣》一書。

免責聲明：本文僅代表作者個人觀點，與海事服務網無關。其原創性以及文中陳述文字和內容未經本站證實，對本文以及其中全部或者部分內容、文字的真實性、完整性、及時性本站不作任何保證或承諾，請讀者僅作參考，並請自行核實相關內容。如有侵權，請後台聯繫我們即刻刪除。

往期精彩

愛牙日30周年：全民升級刷牙方式，健康中國從我做起

便利海員! 新"海員證管理辦法"出爐! 將於5月1日起施行!

你中了幾條?! 2018PSC檢查常見缺陷匯總

何以至此?! 一油輪船長遭船員刺兩刀!

三部委發文加強船舶水污染物轉移處置, 這些新要求你必須知道!

修改後的"船員培訓管理規則"將於6月1日起施行!

【元宵】年節在船上——看看老水手的船上春節

又見船長被訴! 船東被罰200萬美元

震驚! 開年來曹妃甸水域接連發生偷盜事件

目前100000+人已關注加入我們，就差你了！

萬水千山總是情,點下"好看"行不行?