返回列表 回复 发帖

星期六 28/04/2012 应否记入装卸时间

今年4月28日 星期六和4月30日调换后为工作日,我们认为应该记入装卸时间,但是被租家用拒绝。 装卸条款如下:
- load rate:    8,000mt Friday 2400 hrs till mon 0800 hrs sshex pwwd
- disch rate:  10,000mt Friday 2400 hrs till mon 0800 hrs sshex pwwd

參看附件請大家給個建議
附件: 您所在的用户组无法下载或查看附件
有意思的问题。可以对比参考:
伊斯兰国家很多是休息周五的. 如果租船合同中没考虑到这一点,订明SSHEX条款,这样周五肯定不是算是wording day了。问题是能否自动用“周五”把周末的除外时间替换出来呢?英国法律缺乏明确的案例指引,但关于装卸时间与滞期费问题的英国权威著作Laytime and Demurrage(5th edition,2005)认为是不能互换:

Weekend clause

4.284
Charter which exclude Sundays and holidays commonly also provide for periods to be excepted before and after. A typical clause would be:
Time shall not count between noon on Saturday and 8 am on Monday, nor between 5 pm (noon if Saturday) on the last working day preceding a holiday and 8 am on the first working day thereafter.

4.285
Problems sometimes arise as to the application of such a clause to Friday in Moslem countries. Although there would be appear to be no specific authority to the point, it is suggested that the clause must be read as it stands and it would not be permissible to substitute Friday for Saturday. This means that where laytime is measured in (weather) working day, time would not count on Friday, because it is not a working day, and would also suspended from noon Saturday until Monday morning. This may not be particularly fair but it is for the parties to provide for it if they envisage the situation.
我的一点补充看法:
英国法律比较注重法律的稳定性。同时,认为商务合同双方是有对等谈判实力的,尤其尊重合同本身的内容。合同本身的措辞写作A,法官极少可能会因为考虑公平的因素,考虑双方的真实意图,考虑外部环境的变化等等,判为B,这个很难。
大陆法系国家的一些概念,如诚实善意,情势变更,不可抗力等等,英国法根本没有这些观念,因为不稳定,但有时也看起来不够公平、合理。
认识到这一点,在大量适用英国法的航运业务中,应该特别重视合同条款的拟定,要写的清清楚楚。只要文字解释 得通,就按照文字本身来,不会轻易地另作解释,正像上面说的the clause must be read as it stands。拟定一个好的条款,比过后寻求法律支持和帮助,要有效得多。
另外在2009年的一个英国案例关于laytime计算,涉及不同合同条款的协调解释,案例摘要如下. 有兴趣可以看一下:

Pro Forma Charterparty - Printed Terms v Negotiated Terms
February 2010
  
Cobelfret, as owners of the vessel “Lowlands Orchid”, and Swiss Marine, as charterers, entered into a voyage charter for the carriage of 165,000 Mts 10% moloo coal in bulk from Richards Bay to Rotterdam and Immingham. Cobelfret claimed demurrage of US$142,177.25 and Swiss Marine claimed dispatch of US$106,500 in relation to discharge at Immingham.

The tribunal, by a majority, found for Swiss Marine and awarded dispatch. Owners appealed the finding, having been granted permission by Cooke J.

The fixture recap stated:

"Scale load / 25,000 MT SHINC"
(i.e. Sundays and holidays included)

and

"otherwise as per Eurosailor – CP dated 2 March 2004 logically amended to reflect main terms agreed as above..."

That printed charter form provided for a discharge rate of

“63. Discharging Rate: …25,000 metric tons Sundays and Holidays, included, excluding Super Holidays".

The central issue was whether laytime counted at Immimgham for the period from 1800 on 24 December and 0600 on 27 December and turned on whether clause 63 was inconsistent with the recap.

Owners’ case was that holidays were dealt with in the fixture recap by the “H” in “SHINC” and the additional words “o/wise as per Eurosailor”. They argued this meant that only matters not dealt with in the recap should be incorporated and, therefore, that the exclusion of “Super Holidays” taken from clause 63 was inconsistent with the fixture recap and thus could not be incorporated.

It is trite law that where there is an inconsistency between negotiated terms and pro-forma terms, the former will prevail. Accordingly, the question was whether there was an inconsistency between the “SHINC” provision of the negotiated recap and the exclusion of “Super Holidays” in the pro-forma. In this respect, Beatson J considered the test applied in Pagnan SpA v Tradax Ocean Transportation SA [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 342:

            “… it is not enough if one term qualifies or modifies the effect of another; to be inconsistent a term must contradict another term or be in conflict with it, such that effect cannot fairly be given to both clauses.” (Bingham LJ)

Thus the challenge was to determine if what, at face value, might be conflicting provisions amounted to qualifications or contradictory terms of the charter? That is, could the clauses sensibly be read together?

The court did not believe clause 63 prevented any effect being given to the recap provision. The provision of the recap was qualified by clause 63 such that time would count during holidays unless they were super holidays. It is not unusual for a wide provision to be limited or qualified by another provision which does not necessarily lead to inconsistency.

The appeal was dismissed because the two provisions could sensibly and commercially be read together.

Cobelfret Bulk Carriers NVv Swissmarine Services SA [2009] EWHC 2883 (Comm)
delphine, thanks very much for your detailed explantion.
返回列表