1500/04TH 0600/05TH WAITING FOR BERTH
0600/05TH 1530/06TH WAITING FOR BERTH, SEA CHANNEL WAS CLOSED BY HARBOR MASTER DUE TO DENSE FOG
1530/06TH 0825/07TH WAITING FOR BERTH
0825/07TH 1300/07TH WAITING FOR BERTH, SEA CHANNEL WAS CLOSED BY HARBOR MASTER DUE TO DENSE FOG
经计算，装卸时间应从NOR提交12小时后，即2100/04TH起算，外商依据金康94条款和Charter Party约定，认为在装卸时间起算的那一刻，船舶是在待泊，且未说明原因，应视为由于泊位拥堵，无法靠泊，应算在装卸时间内，且后面的所有待泊时间均应连续计算在装卸时间内，直至待泊结束。本案中就应把从2100/04TH ---1300/07TH 这段待泊时间全部算在LAYTIME里。
Charter Party 定明：
1.装卸时间为WWD SHINC.
2 NOR在工作时间提交，WIBON,WIPON。
3.TIME FOR WAITING FOR BERTH ,IF THE BERTH IS OCCUPIED TO COUNT AS LAYTIME.
根据这些规定，个人认为题述争议应该看这坏天气是否会影响到正常的装货作业（有些情况下，大雾虽然不能通航，但是可以装卸的）；
另外，还要看船舶等待泊位是因为泊位被占用，还是仅仅因为坏天气而使船舶无法驶入。如果当时泊位被占用，则天气好坏就没多大关系了，船东可根据上述第3条特别规定，将等泊时间计为装卸时间。而如果当时泊位是空的，则船东上述第3条特殊约定并未包括这种情况，不能根据此条将之计为装卸时间，而应根据其他约定如WWD及是否影响装卸的其他条件来判断了。作者: yoyoqq 时间: 2009-12-2 19:27
装卸时间是要承租人来负责的，一经开始就不能停止，除非：
1、双方同意停算
2、合同中订明可以停算。（如：移泊时间不算装卸时间、PWWD、免责条款等）
3、船东违约造成的时间损失可以停算
除此之外，其他的时间损失都算程租人的。
首先，你得搞清楚船舶待泊时间是由什么引起的。是因泊位被占用？还是天气转好带来的大量船舶集中出港，使得该船无法过海峡？
如果是后者的话，那么船长递交的NOR是无效的，在如果你的租约是泊位租约，且船长没有再次递交NOR，你可以将整个待泊时间全部推卸掉，装卸时间从真正开始装卸的那一刻起算。
如果是前者的话，你先要证明该坏天气确实会影响你船要装卸的泊位来装卸你船要装卸的货物（据我所知，前阶段波斯不如恩斯海峡就受到了坏天气的影响，不知你船是否要过该海峡，如果是的话因为海峡与黑海内港口相距太远，很有可能坏天气不会影响到泊位）。
就算你证明了前者，还会带来PWWD与3.TIME FOR WAITING FOR BERTH ,IF THE BERTH IS OCCUPIED TO COUNT AS LAYTIME的冲突。
你说的PWWD是附加条款，我有不解，在一般的租约中PWWD是合约的主要条款，应在谈装卸时间时列明，最后将金康94其他条款并入租约。不太可能是你说的附加条款。
那么两者同属合约列明条款且有矛盾，你可以主张装卸时间按3.TIME FOR WAITING FOR BERTH ,IF THE BERTH IS OCCUPIED TO COUNT AS LAYTIME开始后，马上按PWWD停算。
到底能否胜诉就要看仲裁员自己了。正如杨老师所说：打官司是要有奇迹的。作者: guoxinwei 时间: 2010-1-4 16:48
我同意这个矛盾最终的解决和你的结论一样，即可以根据WWD去停算。在我的理解，WWD是为了解决在泊位的装卸时间计算（坏天气影响装卸作业时去扣减），而waiting for berth, if the berth is occupied, to count as laytime这一约定则是为了划分等泊时间的风险。根据这样的意图，我认为可以这样去解释和协调其中的矛盾之处：在等泊期间，如果没有坏天气，则等泊时间全部计为装卸时间；反之，如果泊位出现坏天气影响作业，则做相应扣减。
相应地，根据The “Darrah” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359，贵族院判是承租人可以援引周日或坏天气等可能适用的事由去扣减计为装卸时间的等泊时间。作者: chengsisi 时间: 2010-1-4 17:21
根据楼主所述3.TIME FOR WAITING FOR BERTH ,IF THE BERTH IS OCCUPIED TO COUNT AS LAYTIME.可以想到两种情况，即一、船舶不能靠泊是由于泊位占用，此时可根据第3条款计算装卸时间；二是船舶不能靠泊并不是泊位占用引起的，此时仍要区分导致不能靠泊的原因，如果为船东/租家某一方的责任，则按照责任分摊；如果并不是船东/租家的责任，此时船舶应理解为船舶仍在海上航行，即不能始算装卸时间。
以上仅为个人观点，不妥之处请大家一同商讨。作者: denning_lee 时间: 2011-1-6 20:54
在没有其他补充材料
（1）根据案例：Lloyd's Law Reports [1989] Vol. 1 LLOYD'S LAW REPORTS 1 贵族院判决：wibon只适用于泊位被占用的情况，如果由于坏天气等原因泊位有空而无法靠泊，则不能递交有效的NOR以起算装卸时间，在本案中 有这个time lost in waiting for berth to count as laytime 条文，但是被判决不能帮助船东（泊位是有空的）。
（2）根据The “Darrah” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 359 这是贵族院针对time lost in waiting for berth to count as laytime条文，承租人可以享受到周末周日节假日以及坏天气停算装卸时间的好处。
（3）回到现实情况：你的租约中有这据条文.TIME FOR WAITING FOR BERTH ,IF THE BERTH IS OCCUPIED TO COUNT AS LAYTIME.，关键的是 if the berth is occupied，直白的解释本条分两种情况：
a：泊位被占，则扣除坏天气后计算装卸时间
b：泊位有空：依照上述第（1）点，我个人认为递交的NOR无效，装卸时间根本不起算
（4）以下是Lloyd's Law Reports [1989] Vol. 1 LLOYD'S LAW REPORTS 1的摘录以支持第（3）a的观点
英国贵族院：
Lloyd's Law Reports [1989] Vol. 1
LLOYD'S LAW REPORTS
1
案例导引：By a charter-party dated Oct. 26, 1984 the owners’ vessel Kyzikos was fixed to load a cargo of steel and/or steel products in Italy for discharge in Houston.
The charter which was on the Gencon form provided inter alia:
Discharging port or place - 1/2 safe always afloat, always accessible berth(s) each port
. . .
5 Loading . . . cargoes are to be . . . discharged free of expense and risk for Owners.
Time to commence at 2 p.m. if notice of readiness . . . is given before Noon and at 8 a.m. next working day if notice given during office hours after noon . . . Time lost in waiting for berth to count as loading time . . .
Time to count as per Clause 5 Wipon/Wibon/Wifpon/Wccon . . .
Clause 6 provided inter alia that time lost in waiting for a berth to count as discharging time.
Kyzikos arrived within the discharging port, Houston, at 06 45 hours on Dec. 17, 1984.
Notice of readiness was tendered between 06 45 hours and noon. At all material times the
berth to which the vessel was destined, and at which she ultimately discharged, was
available.
The vessel was however unable to proceed immediately to it because of fog which resulted
in the pilot station being closed. The vessel arrived at her berth at 14 50 hours on
Dec. 20 and discharging was completed at 17 00 hours on Jan. 11, 1985.
The owners claimed that laytime commenced at 14 00 hours on Dec. 17 and the vessel was
on demurrage for a total of 14 days nine hours and 16 minutes. The charterers denied
liability and the dispute was referred to arbitration.
The arbitrator concluded that the reference in cl. 5 to "wibon" had the effect of making
the charter into a port charter and he held that the owners’ claim succeeded in full.
The charterers appealed. The owners were given leave to contend that the award should be
upheld on the alternative ground that in breach of the charter the berth nominated by
the charterers was not always accessible and that the charterers were liable in damages
for detention in a like sum to demurrage.
the phrase has been treated as shorthand for what, if set out in longhand, would be "whether in berth (a berth being available) or not in berth (a berth not being available)"
phrase "whether in berth or not" should be interpreted as applying only to cases where a
berth is not available and not also to cases where a berth is available but is unreachable by reason of bad weather.
点评：这是第一次有关于wibon条款适用于泊位租约下已经抵达港口，泊位有空但是由于坏天气而无法靠泊的英国案例，一直上诉到英国贵族院代表现在的英国法律！那就是该条款只是用于泊位拥挤而无法靠泊的情况！
