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
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
