争议---租家不接受船长于2nd Sep. 提出的NOR， 从本船到达长江口锚地到修好No.2 Crane的时间都不计算为Laytime, “ as a result of Owners' failure to provide the vessel ready
in every respect for discharging operations.”
——————QT——————
装卸作业的“吊杆与绞盘”（derricks and winches）不妥的情况
同是在The “Kyzikos” (1987) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 122 先例，Lloyd 大法官说：
“The conditions which must be fulfilled before a vessel is entitled to give notice of
readiness in a port charter are now well established. First, she must have arrived at the place
within the port where she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers. Secondly,
she must be ready… she need not be absolutely ready, for example, by having all her cargo gear
fixed up and in position. But she must be capable of being ready, in ordinary course, by the time
her cargo gear is needed. If therefore… her cargo gear were broken down, so that she was
incapable of loading or discharging, the second condition was not be fulfilled, and a purported
notice of readiness would be invalid.”
看来，应该是在递交通知书的时候，船舶的吊杆/吊车（derrick/crane）有一座或者多座
不妥需要修理后才能使用，特别是会或多或少延误装卸货，这通知书不会有效。但这还是要
去看其他情况，如准备的装卸作业是否会需要使用船舶吊杆/吊车，因为有可能使用岸上的
设备。例如装散粮就会是在装的时候使用喷嘴，在卸的时候就会使用抓斗。
kyzikos这个案子是讨论wibon条款下大雾船舶无法靠泊装卸时间起算的问题，在二审时lloyd大法官对于船舶有未准备就绪发表了一些看法，租家的律师说船舶因为大雾无法靠泊，属于船舶没有准备就绪(the vessel could not, as a matter of common sense, be said to be at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers if she was unable to proceed by reason of fog)，
Lloyd大法官没有赞同此种说法，就船舶准备就绪，他说明："Secondly she must be ready...to load and discharge her cargo. She need not be absolutely ready, for example, by having all here cargo gear fixed up and in position. But she must be capable of being made ready, in ordinary course, by the time her cargo gear is needed. If therefore her steering gear were broken down, so that she was unable to get to her berth, or if her cargo gear were broken down, so that she was incapable of loading or discharging, the second condition would not be fulfilled."
我个人觉得这段话其实是会有点歧义的，可能您也是因为这段话得出您的结论，我读了两遍觉得法官的表述有点奇怪。lloyd大法官说不是所有的货物装卸设备需要完全准备就绪，只需要在需要使用该设备的时候( in ordinary course, by the time her gear is needed)可以使用就可，但他又说如果cargo gear有问题，无法装卸作业，还是不能满足the second condition（即船舶准备就绪）。
补充说一句，这个案子您援引的是court of appeal（二审）的裁决，但在house of lords终审时二审结果被推翻了，当然，终审只是在讨论wibon的效力问题，没有去涉及二审中lloyd法官对于机器设备准备就绪的讨论。作者: Superintendent 时间: 2012-9-10 13:19
十分感谢LS的回答。
本人对the second condition的理解和您一样，即设备不一定要完全准备就绪，但是如果租家要求马上靠泊装卸货，船舶应该符合靠泊装卸货的要求， 否则NOR是不能被接受的。
