Board logo

标题: 不合理绕航 [打印本页]

作者: seaswift    时间: 2011-4-11 18:35     标题: 不合理绕航

杨先生,您好,我是海事大学毕业的一名学子,一直看着您的书,也引领了我进入了航运圈。目前有个案例想请教您:
我们程租了一艘船从印尼回南中国,合同参见金康,船东报船的时候的航速大概在12节,我们给了一定的margin,算船回中国的大概时间在25号之前,收货人也确定这船如果在25-26号之间到达港口的话,可以马上乘潮安排靠泊,如果在26号之后到,那么潮水要等到下个月7号,我们也把信息及时传递给船东,他们也口头跟我们确认一定会在26号之间到达卸港。但是船东后来每天给我们更新的ETA一天比一天晚,从ETA23号直到最后将近28号才到达,重载航程花了12天多,平均航速才8.5knots左右,我们跟船东交涉的过程中发觉船东回程中安排船绕航去新加坡加油,将油舱全部加满了,据船东说船上MGO不够到达卸港,装港代理跟他们说加不了油,故中途绕航加油,我们同时通过当地另外一个代理也了解到在装港实际上是可以加mgo的,最后船舶抛锚等泊等了10左右,产生了巨大的滞期费损失.

整个过程差不多是这样,您觉得我是否可以通过船东不合理绕航以及船东在航次之前没有备足充足燃油实为不适航来进行抗辩去拒绝付船东这巨大的滞期费吗?

谢谢您的意见,将不胜感激!
作者: SHINER    时间: 2011-4-12 12:16

Ships laden with cargo routinely call at intermediate ports for the purpose of
loading bunkers. If it is typical for a vessel in a particular trade, or of a particular
class, to call at a port for bunkering during the course of a voyage, than that port
becomes within the "usual and customary route", and will not amount to an
unreasonable deviation.

For example, shipowners met their burden in the English law case involving the
INDIAN CITY (1939 A.C. 562). In that case the vessel was deviated to
Constanza for bunkers, which added an additional 193 miles more than a direct
route to the port of discharge. The vessel grounded at Constanza and the owners
incurred general average sacrifices. The charterers refused to contribute into the
general average and contended that the call at Constanza was an unreasonable
deviation (thereby defeating owner's right to seek general average contributions).

The evidence revealed that this particular owner had made several previous
voyages for the charterer and, on all but one, the vessel bunkered at Constanza.
It was also understood that since bunkers were somewhat cheaper at Constanza
(as opposed to ports, more directly enroute), the owner of the vessel, as well as
many other shipowners, followed the same practice. The Court held that the
owners had sustained the burden of demonstrating the reasonableness of their
actions.
作者: SHINER    时间: 2011-4-12 12:24

如果印尼到南中国港口这条航线,实践中,很多船在新加坡加油,应该不算不合理绕航。这样,对于开往加油港新加坡这段航程来说,谈不上船舶不适航。
作者: beorno    时间: 2011-4-12 14:55

一楼的很不厚道。
作者: seaswift    时间: 2011-4-12 16:37

一楼的很不厚道。
beorno 发表于 2011-4-12 14:55
这话从何说起,我只是想作为租家如何去抗辩,尽量能节省成本
作者: SHINER    时间: 2011-4-12 18:14

先看看能否从收货人那里要到DEMM.
作者: seaswift    时间: 2011-4-13 10:15

先看看能否从收货人那里要到DEMM.
SHINER 发表于 2011-4-12 18:14
从收货人那里要不到dem,否则我们也不会这么费劲去跟船东争,船东将船期一次次推迟,航行表现比之前给我们描述的差太多,如果按照正常航行表现是可以直到直靠的,这笔滞期费我是觉得我们太亏。
作者: admin    时间: 2011-4-14 19:39

金康格式的第3条的措辞比较广泛“to call any port in any order, for any purpose”其中任何的目的包括加油,修理,或者其他与船舶有关的事情等。但是普通法下也会存在限制,就是该加油或者修理等的绕航均需要合理并且对于正在进行的航次是必须的。The "Macedon" (1955) 1 Lloyd's Rep. 459。
由此,在该问题中需要确定的就是在该航次中,在新加坡加油是否是正常的做法;第二就是在新加坡加油是否是完成航次所必须的。如果船东为了省钱而专门绕道去新加坡加油甚至是为了下个航次进行加油,那么应该就是属于不合理绕航。
作者: also    时间: 2011-5-27 11:10

in fact, owrs will use the most effective routing to save cost and maximize the return.  therefore, believe there is nothing chtrs can do to blame owrs on same.
作者: 跟随    时间: 2011-5-27 14:00

无论如何解释“不合理绕航”,先将LOG 等资料拿到手,不是可以为究竟谁负责这滞期提供判断依据了?




欢迎光临 杨良宜先生个人网站 (http://yangliangyee.com/) Powered by Discuz! 7.0.0