“If the freight has not been paid by the party to the bill of lading, it might be thought to follow that the shipowner could not direct its payment to himself, on the basis that if C makes a promise to A to pay B, A cannot require C then to pay A instead. However, in the Spiros C Rix L.J. considered, obiter, that as a matter of construction of the bill of lading contract the obligation might be (to use the lettering above) to pay B or as A may direct. Rix L.J. acknowledged that this might cause problems where B had a security interest in receiving the freight. It is also unclear from this dictum whether on this analysis A can redirect payment of freight at any stage or, if not, what events trigger such a right. The law on this point is unclear and it is respectfully suggested that the dictum needs to be treated with some caution.”
据我所知,这票货是由租船人和原船东直接签的合同,没有二船东,没有TC/TCT OWNERS,也没有中间人在背对背签合同,也就是说船东与租船人间只有一份租船合同,而且提单上是"freight payable as per charter party",卸港在中国港口,但运费已经支付,目前争议的只是滞期费.
退一步讲，即便是船东留置货物的借口包括运费，也就是说你们将运费付给承租人，而承租人没有付给船东，你们是不是要再付运费也要视情况而定。提单上"freight payable as per charterparty"，根据你提供的信息，承租人与船东直接签订的合同，中间没有别的租约，那么合并的租约必定会是只有这一份，而你们支付运费就是根据这一份租约，所以你们就不必再支付一次了。
