这种情况我也见到越来越多就是中方公司被无理敲诈（用你的话），因为是看死了中方公司怕打官司，也不能去有板有眼地对付这种局面。换言之，一造成了声誉是好欺负，就会吸引越来越多的人前来捞一把好处。这是念小学的时候应该有的教训。
至于对付目前局面的做法，我不妨说你的建议绝不恰当。理由可举如下：
（一）估计这希腊二船东也不会是财雄势大的公司，所以这20万欧元一去付掉给了这个外国光棍，想再追回来可就困难而且花费更大。
（二）我也无法理解为什么你会想到去毛里塔尼亚扣船。我自己对这个地方一点不认识更不要说它的相关海商法。估计去找一位懂得什么是扣船的律师也难找得到。
（三）还有一个基本错误就是向你敲诈与和你订约的只是二船东，而船舶并非是二船东所拥有。加上这种争议也不是属于“海事优先权”（maritime lien），你怎能去扣无辜船东的船舶？
（四）另一个重大的忧虑是希腊船东如果看到你这么容易这么快就投降，难保船进了第一卸港的malaga在卸了一半后再要求40万欧元与/或在抵达第二卸港的casablanca前再要求80万欧元，你难道再度投降吗？由于贪念是没有止境的，所以一开始希腊船东想敲就应该作出抵抗，而不是去马上想到投降。
至于更好的解决办法，有好几种，以下介绍三种：
方法（A）：这是一个“半投降”的息事宁人的办法，但至少可以防止希腊船东以后再继续来敲诈。这就是告诉希腊船东你不同意这笔20万欧元的钱，但为了尽快卸货，你同意马上付出这20万欧元，存放在malaga的法院或者在伦敦的一个共同银行账户或者英国律师的客户账户，然后由伦敦仲裁去裁定是否是应该支付。我估计你与希腊船东的租约应该是会去规定伦敦仲裁吧。我也估计希腊船东不会是一点不掩饰地向你说：“我就是敲你20万欧元，否则不卸货，不进港。”估计它会是随便找一个借口然后以留置货物的权利拒绝进港。但英美法律的地位是留置所要求的钱即使是合理但仍有争议，被留置方可把该笔钱存放到法院以交换放弃留置，然后这笔钱的处理就由法院诉讼去决定。所以你如果一向希腊船东提出上述的做法，希腊船东就再也不会有任何说得过去的理由可继续去拒绝进港。更重要的，你以这样的办法去回应，显示了你的水平，令希腊船东不敢再去进一步乱来。
我建议你发一个电传给希腊二船东，但最好抄本给真正船东与它的互保协会（这些资料很容易查），说：
“The charterers regret that the disponent owners unreasonably and unlawfully demand the payment of Euro 200,000 and purported to exercise a lien on the cargoes by refusing to enter the port of Malaga. The charterers hereby reserve the right to claim for damages. But with the view to quickly resolve this matter and to avoid further delay, the charterers, UNDER PROTEST, offer to the disponent owners to pay this amount either into the Malaga court or to a joint account in London, pending London arbitration to resolve your alleged entitlement to this amount. Due to the difficulty of setting up a joint account, the charterers can in the alternative offer to pay this amount to a reputable and competent London law firm instructed by the disponent owners and hold it as the stakeholder. With this offer on table, the disponent owners can no longer have any excuses whatsoever to delay the vessel. As there are further cargoes to be discharged at the second and third ports, there is also no need to hold back at the first port at Malaga. There are ample opportunities to lien the cargoes if the charterers failed to put up security as above pursuant to the disponent owners’ agreement and provision of law firm’s name and bank account detail.
This fax is copied to the actual owners and their P&I Club because they are responsible under the bills of lading for delay and refusal to discharge. Therefore they are entitled to be informed in advance for any possible action against the vessel.
Please advice.”
方法（B）：这是一个更好的办法，就是去置身其外。我认为收货人把压力放在你的头上也是一种人性找最好欺负的人施加压力。这是因为货物装船后，除非有特殊的规定，卖家的风险就转移给买家。如果航次有什么延误或者不合理绕航等违约行为，买家理应根据提单合约去对付船东，而不是回来找卖家。事实上，如果你作为卖家要去向船舶采取行动或者索赔，你还是要借用买家的名义。否则你根本没有合约关系，也无法证明有什么损失。所以，我可以建议你打一个电传给有关的买方（malaga与casablanca等），说：
“We, as sellers, regret to know that the vessel refuses to enter the port of Malaga and discharge the cargoes, unless a sum of Euro 200,000 is paid. We agree this demand is wholly unreasonable and unlawful. However, before we can take any actions against the vessel, the contractual relation must be ascertained. Firstly between you and us, our contract is a sale contract, and the risk of shipment pass from us to you upon the shipment of cargoes. Against this risk, you have the coverage of insurance as well as a contractual right under the bills of lading to enforce against the vessel.
For us to go against the vessel has grave problems. Firstly, we are not a party of the bill of lading. Even more important is the fact that, we, as the sellers, can prove no damage for the delay. Therefore even if we want to be of help, there is a clear limitation. We therefore urge you to instruct lawyers to compel the vessel to enter the port of Malaga and Casablanca without delay. This will no doubt be the most effective and speedy way. After all, it is your cargoes at stake which you have already paid for.
Please advice.”作者: leonard611 时间: 2012-1-17 16:52
“We act for the charterers. We noted your earlier demand for Euro 200,000 before you will allow the vessel to enter the first discharge port of Malaga. This is wholly unreasonable and amounts to a blackmail. Full freight has been paid to you already and you have issued, on behalf of the Master or Actual Owners, a full set of “freight prepaid” Bills of Lading. Therefore, further demand for money, purporting to exercise a lien on it, is unreasonable and unlawful. Furthermore, you are putting the vessel in jeopardy (hence the reason why copied this message to the Actual Owners and their P&I Club). We understand the Consignees of Bills of Lading holders for the 1st discharge port of Malaga and Casablanca have intention to arrest the vessel for delay damages.
We therefore demand you to perform without delay in order to mitigate or avoid the delay of the voyage. By copying to the Actual Owners, we also put them on notice of your unlawful orders and directions, and alert them of their independent Bills of Lading contractual obligations to the Consignees.
We wait for your (or Actual Owners’) immediate reply.”
在整个过程中如果对船期造成延误，在买卖合约下应是外国买方的责任。但买卖合约与船东无关，而在船东与贵公司的租约下，贵公司是要负责有关的滞期费，因为对无辜的船东而言，外国买方所造成的延误（没有正本提单或者延误卸货）也应是承租人（贵公司）负责。所以，一种做法是贵公司把滞期费支付给船东后，再去根据买卖合约向外国买方要求补偿这部分等待正本提单或者LOI的滞期费。但有一个更妥善与省钱的做法就是在承租租约内加上一条中止责任与货物留置条文（cesser and lien clause）。这在我的《程租合约》一书第十二章有详细介绍。条文大致上说承租人（贵公司）责任在装完货之后就中止了，而船东必须通过留置货物去取得欠下的滞期费，特别是卸港的滞期费。这一来，如果船东没有这样去做，就无法去向承租人（贵公司）成功索赔滞期费了。所以，如果贵公司租约订得好，有这些保护性条文，就根本不必担心外国买方因为没有提单不能及时卸货的延误。我甚至建议贵公司尽早去发出一个电传给外国买方并抄本船东，大意如下：
“We, the Sellers, must clearly point out to the Buyers that we shall not issue the LOI as requested. We urge the Buyers to take positive and prompt action to minimize delay by immediate procurement of the full set of Bills of Lading, possibly now with the Buyers’ bank. Alternatively, the Buyers should obtain bank guarantee or LOI to the satisfaction of the Owners in exchange for the release of cargo (which does not concern us). To the Owners, reading in copy, we forewarn the Owners to exercise lien on cargo if any demurrage is accrued because of the delay. Failing which a subsequent claim against us under the Charterparty will be forcefully resisted/denied.”
提单作为一份物权凭证（document of title），是早在Lickbarrow v. Mason (1794) 5 Term Rep. 683, King’s Bench先例已经被英国法院确立。但买方的提单持有人可向船东提货，并不表示他们之间有合约关系。这一来，如果买方要向船东索赔，或者船东要向买方索赔，就只能去通过与船东订立运输合约的卖方了。固然买方可以侵权向船东起诉，但这解决不了很多问题。因为象严格或克尽职责的船舶适航责任，不合理绕航，运费与滞期费，等等，都是合约的产物，与侵权无关。这问题在Dunlop v. Lambert (1839)暴露，就是船东向索赔货损的买方抗辩说：“我们之间没有合约关系。” 但船东向卖方却抗辩说：“我们之间有合约关系，但你没有真正的损失，因为装船后你的货物风险已经转移给买方，并且你也取得了全部的货款。”
长话短说，在现实世界中，买方想向订立运输合约的卖方借用他的名义去向船东起诉索赔货损货差也绝非容易，因为提单会是经过多次转手。所以，普通法无法解决这个问题，也只能去通过立法解决了，这就是英国的1855年《提单法》，它最重要的条文是说：“Every Consignee of Goods named in a Bill of Lading, and every Endorsee of a Bill of Lading to whom the Property in the Goods therein mentioned shall pass, upon or by reason of such Consignment or Endorsement, shall have transferred to and vested in him all Rights of Suit, and be subject to the same Liabilities in respect of such Goods as if the Contract contained in the Bill of Lading had been made with himself.”。
在1992年的立法它有了一个叫法是提单合法持有人（lawful holder of bill of lading），而该人是会有提单合约权利与要承担提单合约责任是在Section 3所说明的三种情况，如下：
“(a) takes or demands delivery from the carrier of any of the goods to which the document relates;
(b) makes a claim under the contract of carriage against the carrier in respect of any of those goods; or
(c) is a person who, at a time before those rights were vested in him, took or demanded delivery from the carrier of any of those goods,
that person shall (by virtue of taking or demanding delivery or making the claim or, in case falling within paragraph [c] above, of having the rights vested in him) become subject to the same liabilities under that contract as if he had been a party to that contract.”。
这表示提单合法持有人，不管他是买方或者是银行，只要向承运人／船东去提出要提货，或者是真正去提货，或者去提出货损货差索赔（因为船货全损），就会马上出现了合约的产生，这合约就是提单持有人与船东之间。这一来，船东如果有索赔，包括象运费，滞期费或者是危险品所产生的事故责任，就可以向该提单持有人提出了。换言之，1992年立法是把可能会负上提单合约责任的人士扩大了，例如是银行，它们本来是在1855年《提单法》不会有这危险。
有关的案例已经有两个以上是涉及危险品，而危险品今天在海上运输是非常多与品种是千变万化的，其中不少是中国进出口。第一个案例是The “Berge Sisar”(1998) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 475，它已在《提单与其他付运单证》一书之第三章有详细介绍。案情涉及“丙烷”（propane），严重腐蚀船舶，船东向中间商的瑞典公司索赔。本来中间商是不该负提单合约责任，因为通常它不会去提货或者提出货损货差索赔。但在本案，瑞典公司曾提出向船方提货，但在卸货前发觉“丙烷”不适用，而没有去卸货并去转卖了，争议是该瑞典公司是否要负上1992年立法的合约责任。至于问船东为何不找其他人索赔，例如是真正提货的最终买方，答案应该是瑞典公司有钱赔偿。
第二个先例是The “Ythan” (2005) EWHC 2399 (Comm)，案情涉及中国进口危险品，货物是从委内瑞拉装“Metallic HBI Fines”去中国，但船开出后不久即发生爆炸引致船货全损。该货是以FOB卖给一家瑞士的贸易商，再以CIF转卖给中国买方。在全损后，在欧洲的货物保险公司向船东的互保协会要求出保函作为诉前担保，估计是威胁会采取一些法律行动，例如是冻结船舶的保险赔偿。结果互保协会也的确给了担保。但这一来就涉及了是否有了1992年立法的提单合约责任，因为是向船东提出了索赔货损货差。这是因为船东后来提出反索赔说货物是危险品要反诉船舶的全损，导致欧洲货物保险公司想打退堂鼓。第一审判是光要求保函而没有真正采取法律行动例如是扣船，并不足因此构成提单合约关系的产生。但据悉，船东已提出了上诉，并会在2006年审理，所以结果难料。
还有的疑点是美国公司不知道是在什么时候提出申请Chapter 11的破产保护令，到底只是在第三次要求加价提出或者是以前两次都有提出过。如果在以前两次加价都同时提出过，这就令情况复杂了。这是因为以经济困难为理由而要求加价，不管是真是假（毕竟不去调查是你客户自己的错，而到了现在你要去查美国公司是在1年前讲假话也是极不可能的），这并非是非法胁迫，有关先例是Williams v. Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd (1990) 1 All ER 512。这就会变得要从证据看是哪一个原因导致加价为重，例如时间的先后，反正就是增加了不稳定因素。
重要的是，你的客户要在适当的时机去正式提出上两次加价属于非法胁迫而无效。这适当的时机也就是在买卖合约终止（2007年）或者商品市场明显下跌之时，原因是在这些时候胁迫再不存在。如果非法胁迫不再存在但你的客户仍不去采取行动，就会构成弃权或者是追认了。有关先例是The “Atlantic Baron”(1979) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 89，这些在我的《国际商务游戏规则—英国合约法》都有谈及。一去令上两次加价无效，你的客户就可以向美国公司要回很大的一笔钱。例如这两次加价涉及的铝矾土是8万吨，而加价两次是共45美元，向美国公司可要回的价钱就是300多万美元了，再加上利息，是很大的一笔钱，令你的客户转亏为盈。
现在转去谈第三次提出的加价，这是更容易对付了，只要你的客户不要怕美国公司，也不要怕仲裁（估计买卖合约中有仲裁条文），至少不要怕到是马上想到就是无条件投降，怕也要轻重掌握好。我建议你的客户通过你（是一家中国的律师所）打一个强硬一点的回电给美国公司，我是90%相信美国公司已经可以很快被击退，例如是以下的电文：
“We are the law firm acting for the Buyers. We are instructed with regard to the matter of your unilateral and dictatorial increase of price for the goods, first time in early 2005 by US$25 per MT and second time in July 2005 for another US$20 per MT.
Our client, as the party in between, cannot possibly pass on the said increases to the ultimate Buyers, as we are obliged to honour our sales contract. But they have no alternative except to succumb to your unlawful pressure or threat of non-performance. As a result, our client suffered tremendously. For those increases, our client has reserved position and we repeat it here.
We believe you are fully aware of your conducts had been totally unwarranted and unlawful. Unless you come within 7 clear days that you agree to be liable and will make good our client’s losses, we have to settle this matter in the arbitration per our sale contract.
Your request for the third time to increase the purchase price is accordingly rejected and we urge you to perform or else we shall also refer the matter to arbitration and claim for substantial damage.
