您好，纠纷如下：
我司TC 船A（集装箱船做班轮运输） ，在越南HCM 装货完毕离泊上引水时与当地一驳船B发生碰撞，B沉没，随即A被当局扣留在HCM锚地协助调查事故原因。我司即事故发生时刻起向船东宣布OFF-HIRE。经过10天左右的处理，船东仍无法和越南当局达成协议释放A船，考虑到船上仍载有货物，我司决定要求A船靠HCM先行卸下留存货后另外安排船舶C绕航加挂HCM来转运这些货物。 问题由此产生，租约中涉及OFF-HIRE & CANCEL C/P 的条约如下
Clause 64. CONSECUTIVE OFF-HIRE
During the currency of this Charter, should the vessel be off-hire for a continuous period of more than 21 consecutive days, Charterers have the liberty of canceling this Charter Party provided the Vessel is empty. Also if any time during the currency of this Charter Party the vessel is requisitioned by any government for minimum 21 running days, the Charterers to have option to cancel the remaining period of this Charter Party after discharging all cargoes.
即使是好像NYPE的净时间损失停租条文，也涉及了另一个考虑就是以作为承租人所要求的服务到底是什么，但船舶无法提供，这是在杨大明的《期租合同》一书35.6.3段。其中提到了的“CLIPPER SAO LUIS”（2000），该案涉及了火灾，这是停租事项。但船东抗辩说火灾的时候大家同意船舶在装港泊位灭火，所以船舶可以提供承租人要求的服务就是灭火。但这被DAVID STEEL大法官否定说：“The owners denied that the full working of the vessel was prevented at any time. The argument appeared to be that, since it was the consensus alongside the berth in order to fight the fire, it was thus capable of performing the service then required of her. This proposition is wholly unreal. The vessel had a substantial fire in one of her holds. This had to be extinguished. She could not safely sail. The crew had to act as stevedores, wearing breathing apparatus. Outside assistance was required from the fire brigade, the P&I club surveyor and a fire expert. The vessel had to remain alongside. She was thus unable to perform the service then required of her, which was to sail for Itajai. ”
