6. 租家代理代表租家还是代表船东
按照GENCON的条文,代理由船东选择并委托,单独作为船东的代理,租家如果需要港口代理的服务,应自行委托代理。但在实务中,港口代理通常作为“船舶代理”,同时为船东和租家服务,会分别要求他们自己负担费用。
在Sutton Shipping Co. v. Graham’s Trading Co. (1927)29 Ll. L. Rep. 12中,船舶代理被裁定同时代表船东和租家,但无权使用船东的备用金支付租家费用。
下面的美国仲裁案例,涉及代理权限及港口费用是否合理的问题。
【案例】
The Express Patriot, SMA 3899 (2005) (Arnoald, Bulow, Hansen)
航次租船合同,第28条规定:
Charterers are to nominate vessel’s agents at loading port … In all instances, agency fees shall be for Owners’ account but are not exceed customary applicable fees.
租家指定(nominate)了Bluewater Shipping公司作为在装货港的代理,船东予以确认并要求该代理在船舶在港期间,应维护船东利益。
之后,Bluewater Shipping作为船舶代理向装货码头公司申请泊位,在申请书中接受了该码头的费率条款,包括“船舶原因导致装货延误的,每小时收费USD 5,000”。
装货过程中,由于船舶机械故障,1舱舱盖无法打开,被迫将船舶移往锚地修理。修妥后,重新靠泊装货,共延误10.3个小时。码头公司按照上述费率,向船东收取延误费合计USD 51,500。
船东的争辩,USD 5,000/小时的码头延误费并不合理,不属于“通常的”港口费用,不应由船东承担。该轮的租金也不过USD 4,150/天。
同时,船东争辩,代理在靠泊申请中接受了码头公司的费率,并没有得到船东的授权,该行为对船东无约束力:
(Owner) further argues that the Vessel is not obligated to accept the terms of (Terminal)’s tariff by virtue of Bluewater's signing the berthing application on the Vessel's behalf, inasmuch as Bluewater was acting as Charterer's agent, not Owner's. …… where a charterer selects an Agent and the vessel owner exercises no control over that choice, and where the vessel owner exerts no control over the conduct of that agent, the agent lacks authority to bind the vessel owner when making berthing arrangements.
仲裁庭驳回了船东的争辩,判USD 51,500由船东承担。
仲裁庭认为,首先,船舶租金的高低对判断码头延误费是否合理并没有影响;其次,关于代理问题,船东已经接受Bluewater Shipping作为船舶代理,其申请泊位的行为是代表船东,并对船东有约束力:
By accepting Clause 28, (Owner) had agreed to the use of Bluewater Shipping as the Vessel's agents for the loading in New Orleans. If indeed (Owner) was not satisfied with the nominated agents or lacked faith in their qualifications, (Owner) could have retained the services of a protective agent.
【小结】
是船东还是租家,要对代理的行为的后果负责?不仅要看谁委托/指定的代理,也要看代理行为的性质,为了谁而行为。例如安排引水、拖轮、靠泊等传统上由船东负责的事项,即使是“租家代理”安排,也会被认为代表了船东。国内对船代与货代的业务范围, 划分比较清楚, 业务交叉的情况应不多. 但无论如何, 船东如果对租家指定这个代理船东不信任,还是尽早委任保护代理为宜。
(全文完)
欢迎大家多多讨论\批评\指正. |