船舶适航

denning_lee

Scrutton on c/p 51节 适航保证
8 船舶适航（1）[1915] 2 KB 774 CIAMPA AND OTHERS v BRITISH INDIA STEAM 高院
船舶在装货前挂靠疫区，装货后挂靠港口被当局命令薰舱因此毁损货物，船东依靠提单中的免责条款抗辩 restraints of princes or rulers, and circumstances beyond the defendants' control.以及一条广泛的允许绕航条款；对此货主提出了船舶不适航的主张。

（2）Held, (1.) that the defendants were not protected from liability for the damage by the above exceptions in the bill of lading; and
(2.) that the fact that /the ship would inevitably have to undergo at Marseilles the process of "d ratisation," which would damage the lemons, caused her to be not reasonably fit at Naples //for the carriage of the lemons, and that she was, therefore, unseaworthy.
判决船东不能因此享受免责，以及事实是船舶不可避免的在马赛港进行处理，而这处理将损坏货物，导致其在装港装运货物是不合理的合适，因此其不适航
9 船舶适航（2）[1877] 3 App Cas 72STEEL et al.THE STATE LINE STEAMSHIP COMPANY [HOUSE OF LORDS.]
Per THE LORD CHANCELLOR n(1) :- There is in the bill of lading an engagement that the ship shall be seaworthy. Held, that there was an implied engagement to supply a seaworthy ship:（开航前和开航当时的适航责任）

to be quite clear, both in England and in Scotland, that where there is a contract to carry goods in a ship, whether that contract is in the shape of a bill of lading, or any other form, there is a duty on the part of the person who furnishes or supplies that ship, or that ship's room, unless something be stipulated which should prevent it, that the ship shall be fit for its purpose. That is generally expressed by saying that it shall be seaworthy; and I think also in marine contracts, contracts for sea carriage, that is what is properly called a "warranty," not merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but that the ship should really be fit.

So here I think that if this failure to make the ship fit for the voyage, if she really was unfit, did exist, then the loss produced immediately by that, though itself a peril of the seas, which would have been excepted, is nevertheless a thing for which the shipowner is liable, unless by the terms of his contract he has provided against it.

如果船东没有使得船舶适航，如果损失是由不适航所直接导致的，即使这是一个在免责条款中说明的风险，尽管如此这个事情仍旧是要船东负责，除非在合约中用清晰明了的字眼表明即使如此船东仍不负责

船舶适航问题可以说是一个事实问题与法律问题的混合，船舶是否适航不仅牵涉到问题的本身以及包括举证责任、原被告的法律知识以及作证技巧等等。10 船舶适航（3）COHN v DAVIDSON AND ANOTHER[1877]2 QB D
Shipping - Carriage of Merchandise - Warranty of Seaworthiness - Ship seaworthy whilst lying in Port of Loading, but becoming unseaworthy at Time of sailing on Voyage with Cargo on board.

Now the degree of seaworthiness which the merchant requires is seaworthiness for the voyage, and surely the most natural period at which the warranty is to attach/ is that at which the perils are to be encountered which the ship is to be worthy to meet. The ship is, during her stay in port, and whilst loading, and when she sets sail on her voyage, in the custody and possession and under the control of the master and crew, and it is most reasonable and convenient to impose upon those, who have the best means of knowing, the duty of ascertaining her condition at that critical time when she is about to meet the perils, which it is the object of all parties that she should be prepared to meet.船舶适航的目的是为了抵御航行中风险，所以在装港装货过程以及船舶开航时都需谨慎照顾以使船舶适航

船舶适航是一个事实问题，究竟什么算开航当时，开航后一秒还是一天，这是一个典型的模糊地带，所以需要谨慎对待，毕竟不像法律问题很明显，事实问题就会有很多有争议的地方，也得看双方的举证水平。

denning_lee

11 船舶适航（4）[1876]1 QB D 377KOPITOFF v WILSON AND OTHERS
At the trial the judge told the jury, as a matter of law, that a shipowner warrants the fitness of his ship when she sails, and not merely that he will honestly and bona fide endeavour to make her fit 适航的默示保证不仅仅是船东诚实的善意的，努力的使其适航，而是确实需要做到使得船舶适航

We think that the rule must be discharged. We hold that, in whatever way a contract for the conveyance of merchandise be made, where there is no agreement to the contrary, the shipowner is, by the nature of the contract, impliedly and necessarily held to warrant that the ship is good, and is in a condition to perform the voyage then about to be undertaken, or, in ordinary language, is seaworthy, that is, fit to meet and undergo the perils of the sea and other incidental risks to which she must of necessity be exposed in the course of the voyage

the existence of the warranty in question /on the part of a shipowner/ is asserted with reference to his character as such, and not as existing only in those cases// in which he is also acting as a public carrier.适航的保证或者义务并非只有在船东作为公共承运人而存在，而是由于其作为承运人的性质而存在
12 拖船适航（5）[1886]11 P D 46THE UNDAUNTED
Towage - Efficiency of Tug for Service - Exemption of Owner from Liability.关于拖船的适航问题。There is an implied obligation in a contract of towage, that the tug shall be efficient and properly equipped for the service, and a proviso in the contract that the owners will not be responsible for the default of the master, does not release them from such implied obligation.在拖带合同中船东有个默示责任那就是拖船必须有效的装备以满足拖带的需要，合同中免除船长过失的免责条文并不能使其免除这个默示责任
本案关于拖船在拖带中由于缺乏足够的燃料导致出现了延迟，被判船舶没有装备好足够的燃料不适航



13 拖船适航（6）[1911] P 23THE WEST COCK高院与上诉庭
"not to be responsible for any damage to the ship they have contracted to tow arising from any perils or accidents of the seas rivers or navigation collision straining or arising from towing gear (including consequence of defect therein or damage thereto) and whether the perils or things above mentioned or the loss or injury therefrom be occasioned by the negligence default or error in judgment of the pilot master officers engineers crew or other servants of the tug owners拖带合同广泛的免责条款，也免除了船长船员的疏忽过失或者判断失误等情况

Held by the President (Sir Samuel Evans), that the defendants were liable, as there was an implied warranty in the contract of towage that the tug supplied was duly equipped and fit for service; but the cause of the damage sustained by the plaintiffs' vessel was the defective condition of the rivets attaching the towing gear of the tug to her bunker casing. This defect was not covered by the contract, the conditions of which only applied to circumstances occurring after the commencement of, and during, the towage, and not to the state of things existing before the towage began.船东需要负责赔偿，在拖带合同中一个默示条款那就是拖船必须适当装备以及适合拖船服务，导致原告损害的原因是由于拖船本身的缺陷所致。这个缺陷并不适用合同的免责条款，合约免责条款只是用在拖带合同开始执行后并不适用在拖带开始前发生的缺陷（也就是船舶适航的要求是在开航前和开航当时）

船东谨慎处理使得船舶适航是在开航前和开航当时，这时的疏忽大意（只运用合理注意和谨慎是可以避免的）不能通过免责！这个举证有困难，需要找出是否引起损害的故障或者不适航的原因出现在开航前，这是一个事实问题。

"The owners of the tug must be taken to have contracted that the tug should be efficient, and that her crew, tackle, and equipment should be equal to the work to be accomplished in weather and circumstances reasonably to be expected, and that reasonable skill, care, energy and diligence should be exercised in the accomplishment of the work. On the other hand, they did not warrant that the work should be done under all circumstances and at all hazards, and the failure to accomplish it would be excused if it were due to vis major or to accidents not contemplated, and which rendered the doing of the work impossible."拖船船东尽合理注意以及必要的技能，并不是绝对的和严格的、不惜一切代价的！

Lord Selborne, in the well-known passage in his judgment in Steel v. State Line Steamship Co. n(2) , said: "The [excepted perils] are capable of, and ought to receive, a construction, not nullifying and destroying the implied obligation of the shipowner to provide a ship proper for the performance of the duty which he has undertaken.免责条款并不能免去船东使得船舶适航的责任，除非合约有明确相反的条文免除适航责任，否则模糊不清含义不明的条文不能免除适航责任


In my opinion it is not sufficient for a tug owner, in an actionlike the present, to prove that he was not aware of any unfitness or inefficiency, or that it could not be discovered by an ordinary inspection. At the lowest I think his obligation is to prove that the unfitness or inefficiency was not preventable or discoverable by care or skill. 对船东来说仅仅证明其没有意识到船舶不合适或者不适航是不足够的，或者说这些是不能在例行检查中所发现的。最起码的责任是证明这些不适航是使用了谨慎处理和技能还是不能被发现的（船东适航的责任比较重，要尽合理注意的义务）
上诉庭：
JUDGMENTBY-3: KENNEDY L.J The burden of proof, in such a case as the present, lies upon the tug owner to shew that it was /as reasonably fit and proper a tug for use/ as skill and care could make it. 本案情况举证责任在于船东以表明合理注意和技能以使船舶适航
14 拖船适航（7）1951 2 LR 175FRASER & WHITE, LTD. v. VERNON高院
Clause 6 provided: The tugowner will not be responsible for the consequences of war, strikes, lock-outs, riots, civil commotions, disputes or labour disturbances (whether they be parties thereto or not) or anything done in contemplation or furtherance thereof, or delays of any description, however caused, including negligence of their servants or agents.


this towage contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was not a contract for specific tugs but was a contract for towage services; and he submits that if it is true that the contract was a contract for towage services, then the law implies that the tugs supplied// will be sufficient for the purpose, whereas if it is a contract for specific tugs then there is no implied warranty or condition as to the capability of the tugs.这个原被告之间的合同属于什么性质？特定的拖船（其中并没有默示保证船舶适航）？还是拖航服务？（其中牵涉的默示保证船舶适航的问题）

15 船舶适航（8）[1949] 1 KB 188REED AND OTHERS v DEAN
Contract - Hire of specific chattel - Warranty of fitness - Charter of launch for holiday - Fire on board - Cause unexplained - Fire fighting equipment detective - Liability


I hold therefore that the defendant was under an implied obligation to make the "Golden Age" as reasonably safe as care and skill could make it, that that obligation included an obligation to provide fire-fighting equipment, and that one of the causes of the loss that the plaintiffs have suffered was the failure by him to provide efficient fire-fighting equipment. 适航需要船东提供相关的设备，例如本案中必要的消防设备（所以适航的定义简单，但是如何操作其中有许多的模糊地带，需要具体问题具体分析）


although the contract related to a specified launch, there was an implied undertaking by the defendant that that launch was as fit for the purpose for which it was hired// as reasonable care and skill could make it. 尽管本案不是租船合约或者拖航，但是类似的租赁合约有这样的一个默示保证租借出去的东西是适合出租的目的和用途（类似于船舶出租）

denning_lee

16 进港航次船舶适航（9）[1958] Vol. 2 Lloyd's Rep. 502   COMPAGNIE ALGERIENNE DE MEUNERIE v. KATANA, SOCIETA DI NAVIGAZIONE MARITTIMA, S.P.A.(THE "NIZETI.")高院
案情：船舶挂靠阿拉伯国家港口前曾挂靠以色列港口被列入黑名单，按照叙利亚法律前往该国装港需要获得装船许可，船舶抵达装港前和当时并没有取得，叙利亚政府颁布禁令禁止船舶运货前往目的港。


This is not a case of inadequate documentation which would have been a breach of warranty of seaworthiness (see Levy v. Costerton, (1816) 4 Camp. 389), nor is it a case (as it was in Ciampa and Others v. British India Steam Navigation Company, Ltd., [1915] 2 K.B. 774), where the vessel at the time the charter was fixed was, to the knowledge of the owners, not shared by the charterers, foredoomed to inability to carry the contractual cargo, which would in deed be a breach of the warranty "expected ready to load."基于仲裁员认定在签发声明（以获取进港许可）方面船东行使了合理注意所以并未因为法律文件准备不充分而违反适航保证，法官也不认为船舶在订立租约时船东就知道船舶必然不可能装运货物（理由在于以前船舶行驶于苏伊士运河并未被延滞，只要船长签发声明就可以获得阿拉伯国家的进港许可，也就是说以前可以获取的许可由于某种原因不能取得船东在这方面只要合理注意就没有问题）


In these circumstances, there must at least be an implied warranty by the shipowners that they will use reasonable diligence to obtain the necessary permission to load the cargo on the vessel.船东运用合理注意以获取许可


It seems to me that the highest at which the warranty on the part of a shipowner may be put is that he will (a) exercise due diligence to obtain, and (b) will in fact obtain, within a reasonable time, any permission to load the vessel which is required under the Syrian law in force at the time when the charter-party was entered into. 在合理时间内获得该许可（是一个绝对责任，但是需要在合理时间内完成，属于保证条款而非条件条款一旦违反即可解除合约，不能取得该许可则违反保证租家可以获得损害赔偿）
高院法官逻辑：存在默示保证以取得许可并在合理时间内取得许可，法官判决在最终禁令颁布前船东未违反这个默示保证（这段时间是合理的）故而禁令的颁布使得合约受阻；换言之只要船东未尽合理注意以取得许可则船东不可以依赖禁令而需赔偿租家损失。
上诉庭[1960] Vol. 1   Lloyd's Rep.  132
（1）租家认为不能装货的原因是由于船舶的缺陷（曾经挂靠以色列港口）租家的逻辑思维是由于挂靠以色列港口，必然导致在阿拉伯港口延迟，延迟导致顺利开装，导致在禁令最终生效前没有装货完毕（换言之租家认为只要船舶没有挂靠过以色列港口则船舶可以顺利开装最终在禁令生效前完成装货）所以租家认为船东不能依靠由于自身的违约而依靠最终禁令使得合约受阻。


Lord Justice HODSON：认为没有先例针对船舶适航可以适用在进港航次（approach voyage）
There is no business necessity, in my judgment, for such an additional warranty as that implied by the learned Judge. The obligation "expected ready to load" is sufficient for business efficacy. 没有必要默示船舶需要取得必须的许可，因为有这个预计备妥装货的责任就足以覆盖船舶取得许可的情形了。
（3）Lord Justice ORMEROD：
      . . . now trading and expected ready to load under this charter about 24th May 1956 . . .

It was not contended by the appellants that there had been a breach of this warranty. The Nizeti had discharged cargo at the Israeli port of Haifa in February, 1955, but, on four subsequent occasions between that date and May, 1956, she had passed through the Suez Canal.
Each time the master had signed a declaration of non-co-operation with Israel and the ship had been allowed to proceed on her voyage without any substantial delay. It was reasonable to expect, therefore, that there would be no delay from this cause in carrying out the proposed voyage, and that the expectation was "one made honestly and upon reasonable grounds" (see Sanday & Co. v. Keighley, Maxsted & Co., (1922) 10 Ll.L.Rep. 738; (1922) 27 Com. Cas. 296).给出预计备妥装货是合理的，由于有以前几次经过苏伊士运河的经验，船东没有理由预计到将受到延迟

It was contended on behalf of the appellants that there was an implied warranty of
seaworthiness in relation to a vessel proceeding to the port of loading. This contention, however, is not in accordance with the authorities. Seaworthiness is well understood to mean the measure of fitness which the particular voyage or particular stage of the voyage requires (see Cohn v. Davidson and Another, (1877) 2 Q.B.D. 455), where it was held that the implied warranty of seaworthiness attaches at a time when the perils of the intended voyage commence, that is, when she sets sail with the cargo on board for her destination（关于适航的默示保证出现在船舶载货开航前和开航当时）

denning_lee

17 连续航次船舶适航（10）1957 1 LR 79ANGLO-SAXON PETROLEUM COMPANY, LTD. v. ADAMASTOS SHIPPING COMPANY, LTD.高院与上诉庭
高院：
(1) Whether the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (hereinafter called the Act) affects the rights and liabilities of the parties under the charter-party.

租约的首要条款（并入美国海上货物运输法案）This bill of lading shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act of the United States approved April 16, 1936, which shall be deemed to be incorporated herein, and nothing herein contained /shall be deemed a surrender/ by the carrier of any of its rights or immunities or an increase of any of its responsibilities or liabilities under said Act. If any term of this bill of lading be repugnant to said Act to any extent, such term shall be void to that extent but no further.法官通过这是一个打字条款代表了双方的意图，而该条款中的the bill of lading 是错误叙述不影响文件效力以及双方的真实意图该租约受制于美国1936年海上货物运输法


If the answer to (1) is "Yes," whether under the charter-party any material provisions of the Act affect the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection with (a) non-cargo-carrying voyages, (b) cargo-carrying voyages other than those to or from ports in the United States of America.
（a）不适用与空放航次，因为运输法中明确提及适航责任限于开航前和开航当时，所以并不适用在空放进港航次（也就是说在空放去装港的航次受制于租约的第一条船舶坚固适于服务以及合理速遣至装港，从而也与后来上诉庭先例相一致，进港航次并不适用与船舶适航，而受制于船舶合理速遣至装港的义务，如有船舶延误则可因此条款提起索赔）
（b）是不是美国运输法只适用于与美国港口有关的航次？该法案有说明本法仅适用于美国港口有关的航次，既然首要条款已经被并入租约，而租约航次范围广泛从这个意义上来说双方是打算合同受制于美国运输法


Do the words "loss or damage" in Sect. 4 (1) and/or Sect. 4 (2) of the Act relate only to physical loss of or damage to the goods?法官判决并不限于对于货物的直接物理损害，但是同时损害与货物之间的关系并不能太远。
上诉庭[1957] Vol. 1   Lloyd's Rep.   271   
思考一个问题在存在海牙规则或者类似法律规范时船舶的适航责任是在开航前和开航当时，但是若不适用此类规则时，船舶的适航责任是否是绝对责任？高院法官判决适航责任受限于合约明示条文和默示的适航保证。

（2）1. Whether the United States Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (hereinafter called the Act) affects the rights and liabilities of the parties under the charter-party.

2. If the answer to (1) is "Yes," whether under the charter-party any material provisions of the Act affect the rights and liabilities of the parties in connection with (a) non-cargo-carrying voyages; (b) cargo-carrying voyages other than those to or from ports in the United States.

Do the words "loss or damage" in Sect. 4 (1) and/or Sect. 4 (2) of the Act relate only to physical loss of or damage to the goods?
（3）Clause 1 said:
That the said vessel being tight, staunch and strong, and every way fitted for the voyage, and to be maintained in such condition during the voyage, perils of the sea excepted, shall, with all convenient dispatch, sail and proceed to one of several named ports and there load a full and complete cargo of oil.  
Clause 9. The Act of God, perils of the sea, fire . . . collisions, stranding, and other accidents of navigation excepted, even when occasioned by negligence, default, or error in judgment of the pilot, master, mariners, or other servants of the shipowners. Vessel not answerable for losses through explosions, bursting of boilers, breakage of shafts, or any latent defect in the machinery or hull, not resulting from want of due diligence合理勤勉 by the owners of the ship, or any of them, or by the vessel's husband or manager. . . .

LORD DENNING:除非有明示免责或者除外条款，在执行连续航次时，每一个航次开始前船舶都需要适航（包括人员配备和装备）；以及上述clause1表明船东有一个绝对的责任使得在航次执行中适航；条款1中还包括一个合理速遣的责任，而在航次中的延迟初步表明船东违反了这个责任；上上述第九条免责条文并不能免除其指派不胜任员工方面的疏忽（但是仲裁员的认定是在这个方面船东已经尽到合理勤勉，而cclause1的责任是绝对的）
关于是否并入美国运输法：And I have good reason for thinking that we might differ from the Judge, and between ourselves, as to what would be reasonable.
This all leads me to the conclusion that this Paramount Clause cannot sensibly be applied to this charter-party. It must be rejected as insensible in this setting: see
Nicolene, Ltd. v. Simmonds, [1953] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 189.
I would emphasize the setting. This is an attempt by the shipowner to escape from liability /which otherwise would be imposed upon him by his contract and by the law.
We have repeatedly refused to allow a party to a contract to escape from his just liability under it //by reason of an exempting clause, unless he does so by words which are perfectly clear, effective and precise: see Petrofina, S.A., of Brussels v. Compagnia Italiana Trasporto Olii Minerali, of Genoa, (1937) 57 Ll,L.Rep. 247.
The shipowners' claim to exemption fails on that ground if on no other. I would answer each of the questions asked by the umpire in par. 56 (1) to (10) by saying "Yes." 法官的意见是船东寻求并入条款只是为了逃避本来应该承担的责任，除非他们用明显和清晰的字眼表示他们不受这个责任约束，因为该法案与合约有极大的冲突，所以探求双方当事人的意思是不会受这个法案约束的。
（5）梳理上诉庭全体法官的意见：在合约条文中的第一条船东有一个绝对的适航责任（要超过合理勤勉），同时裁定连续航次的航次租船合同与美国运输法（海牙规则）冲突得非常厉害故而裁定该法案未被并入，船东不能寻求使用合理勤勉从而免除其违反适航责任。

denning_lee

18 货损货差船舶适航适航（11）[1984] Vol. 2  Lloyd's Rep. 586   EMPRESA CUBANA IMPORTADADE ALIMENTOS "ALIMPORT"v.IASMOS SHIPPING CO. S.A.(THE "GOOD FRIEND")高院
（1）进口方（或者货主等）能够证明货物损失是由于不适航造成的，船东依然可以免责（在海牙规则下只要船东行使合理勤勉以使船舶在开航前和开航当时适航）
（2）在目的港船上发现虫害，需要举证虫害是来源于船舶本身还是货物固有的内在缺陷，这是一个事实问题需要双方进行举证，其中不仅包含事情真相本身更有举证的能力和技巧等等
（3）关于在海牙规则下船舶适航的责任：I regard that as a decision that the obligation to make a ship seaworthy itself includes an obligation to see that the ship is fit for cargo service. Where the particular service is specified in the contract, it is an obligation to see that the ship is fit to carry the specified cargo on the specified voyage; see Scrutton of Charterparties (18th edition) p. 83:
The undertaking of seaworthiness involves not only that the ship is herself fit to encounter the perils of the voyage, but also that she is fit to carry the cargo safely on that voyage.船舶适航不仅包括船舶能经历预期的风险以及适合载运货物，还需要适货，如果合同有特殊说明载运某种具体的货物则船舶需要适合载运此类货物

关于船舶适货：The undertaking of seaworthiness at common law in my opinion includes, under the heading of what is sometimes called cargoworthiness, an undertaking that the ship shall be reasonably fit to receive and carry the cargo and deliver it at the specified destination. If the ship's condition is such that she is not reasonably fit for those tasks, the undertaking has been broken, even if the cargo suffers no physical damage and it is only the adventure that is lost. 适货包括合理合适的接受运输和交付货物（即使对于货物并没有实质的损害）

关于航次中需要轻载等：Lord Denning expressly accepted the passage which I have cited from Scrutton on Charterparties, and tacitly approved the decisions in Ciampa's case and The Madeleine.
It seems to me that the Court of Appeal were deciding that a temporary or minor impediment, such as the necessity for lightening, which might occur in the course of many voyages or at any rate at many ports of discharge, did not render a vessel unseaworthy.法官认为一些暂时的微小的阻碍例如轻载等并不是使得船舶因此变得不适航
（4）即使证明了船舶不适航，想要从船东处获得赔偿，仍旧需要证明船东没有行使合理勤勉（在普通法下或者有关条文适航是一个绝对责任，然而在海牙规则下适航的责任有所减轻只要船东行使合理勤勉）但就如何证明已经尽到合理勤勉，这就需要举证。
19 阶段航次船舶适航THIN AND ANOTHER v RICHARDS & CO [1892] 2 QB 141[COURT OF APPEAL]
（1）Held, by Day, J., that the voyage was an entire voyage from Oran to Garston, and that, the warranty of seaworthiness at the commencement of that voyage having been broken, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover;

Held, by the Court of Appeal, that even if the voyage could be treated as one divided into stages, the warranty of seaworthiness, which attaches at the commencement of each stage, had been broken at Huelva, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover.
即使一个航次可以被划分为几个阶段，那么适航的保证在每一个阶段开航前都需要使得船舶适航
（2）合约条款：The ship being tight, staunch, and strong and every way fitted for the voyage, shall ... proceed to Oran ...., and there load from the charterers, or their agents, a part cargo (say 200 to 250 tons) of Broza (having liberty to fill up with ore or other dead weight cargo for owner's benefit) ... and being so loaded, shall therewith proceed to Garston dock, or so near thereto as she may safely get, and deliver the same agreeably to bills of lading. ... Any act, neglect, or default whatever of pilot, master, or crew in the management or navigation of the ship, ... always mutually excepted. The vessel to have liberty to call at any ports in any order. ...."免去管船和航海过失
（3）Lord Wensleydale. "If the voyage be such as to require a different complement of men, or state of equipment, in different parts of it, as if it was a voyage down a canal or river, and thence across to the open sea," in this case as if the voyage were from Oran to Huelva and thence to Garston, "it would be enough if the vessel were, at the commencement of each stage of the navigation, properly manned and equipped for it" n(3) , that is, properly equipped for that stage. If; therefore, the shipowner insists that Huelva to Garston is a stage of the voyage, he must see that the vessel is properly equipped at the commencement of that stage. Any question as to the state of the ship with regard to seaworthiness at Huelva would therefore not turn on neglect or default of the master or crew, but would depend on an absolute warranty. 如果在每一个阶段开航前及开航当时，船舶适当配备使得船舶适航，任何关于船舶状态有关适航的问题都不是船员疏忽过失，而是在一个绝对的保证（普通法下适航是绝对的）

FRY, L.J It is just and right that //the plaintiff should be entitled to recover, for the law imposes a warranty of seaworthiness for the entire voyage contemplated by the parties, and the shipowner ought not to be able to escape from this ability by dividing the voyage into stages.就算船东将航次划分为几个阶段都不能使得船东逃避这个责任。

denning_lee

20 接受货物适航MCFADDEN v BLUE STAR LINE[KING'S BENCH DIVISION][1905] 1 KB 697
（1）Ship - Bill of Lading - Seaworthiness - Warranty of Fitness to receive Cargo - Duration of Warranty - Incorporation of Harter Act - Effect of, on Obligation of Shipowner.
（2）The warranty, which is prima facie implied in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea, that the ship is fit for the reception of the cargo, is an absolute warranty; and the incorporation in the bill of lading of the provisions of the Act of Congress known as the Harter Act does not cut down the obligation of the shipowner in that respect to an obligation to exercise due diligence to make the ship fit for that purpose.
The above warranty is a warranty only as to the condition of the ship at the time of loading; it does not continue in force after the goods are once on board.
在海上货物运输合约中默示保证船舶适合接受货物，这是一个绝对的保证，在提单中并入有关哈特法的条款并不能降低船东运用合理勤勉以使得船舶适合接受货物的责任
上述的保证只是有关在开始装货时船舶的状态，货物一旦上船该保证就不会继续有效（这只是一个适合接受货物的保证，算是适航的一种，一旦装货完成这个保证就不再有效了，适航保证中包括开航时能够经历一般的海上风险，但是这个保证在开航后就不存在了）
（3）So, too, it is clear that the warranty of the ship being fit to encounter the perils of the voyage does not attach before she sails and while she is still loading her cargo. There is, of course, no warranty at the time the goods are put on board that the ship is then ready to start on her voyage;
for while she is still loading there may be many things requiring to be done before she is ready to sail.
The ordinary warranty of seaworthiness, then, does not take effect before the ship is ready to sail, nor does it continue to take effect after she has sailed: it takes effect at the time of sailing, and at the time of sailing alone. 默示保证能够经历海上风险这个旨在开航时才存在，不会在开航后继续存在
法官类比阶段性航次需要阶段性适航一样，船舶适合接受货物的保证也是阶段性的，当这个阶段完成后就不存在了。
I think the warranty is that at the time the goods are put on board she is fit to receive them and to encounter the ordinary perils that are likely to arise during the loading stage; but that there is no continuing warranty after the goods are once on board that the ship shall continue fit to hold the goods during that stage and until she is ready to go to sea,

denning_lee

21 特殊货物适航问题[1874][L R] 9 C P 390STANTON v RICHARDSON.
BOVILL, C.JThe ship was good and sound enough for ordinary purposes, and the cargo was a proper cargo for a ship that was suitable to carry it.
I am not aware of any authority to support the proposition that the charterer is bound to offer a cargo suitable to the particular ship in the state in which she is at the time of loading. 没有先例认为租家要提供适合船舶的货物在装船的时候
（2）
Held, that the shipowner, by entering into the charterparty, undertook that the ship should be reasonably fit for the carriage of a reasonable cargo of any of the kinds of goods specified in the charterparty, and consequently of a reasonable cargo of wet sugar; and that, upon the findings of the jury that she was not so fit, and could not be made so in such a time as not to frustrate the object of the voyage, the charterer was entitled to succeed in both actions.只要租约订明的货物，那么船东有责任使得船舶适合接受这些货物




22 提单免责与船舶适航[1874]12 QB D 297TATTERSALL v THE NATIONAL STEAMSHIP COMPANY, LIMITED
（1）Ship - Bill of Lading, Exceptions in, applicable to Matters occurring during the Voyage - Breach of Obligation to provide reasonably fit Ship - Clause limiting Liability of Shipowners, Scope of.
（2）Held, that the provision in the bill of lading limiting liability to 5l. for each of the cattle did not apply to damage occasioned by the defendants not providing a ship reasonably fit for the purposes of the carriage of the cattle which they had contracted to carry.
提单中的责任限制条款不能适用于该损害是由于船东没有提供合适的船舶以运输那些他们本来答应运输的货物
（3）DAY, J：I have considered the terms of the bill of lading, and, as I construe it, its stipulations which have been relied upon all relate to the carriage of the goods on the voyage, and do not in any way affect the liability for not providing a ship fit for their reception.解释提单的免责条款所免去的是船舶执行航次中的责任，并不影响船东那个提供适合接受货物的职责（适航责任属于航次开始前船东的默示保证除非有明示的相反规定）

denning_lee

23 Fitness of Refrigerating Machinery特殊货物适航[1895]2 QB 550OWNERS OF CARGO ON SHIP MAORI KING v HUGHES
（1）Held (affirming the decision of Mathew J.), that the bill of lading contained an implied warranty that the refrigerating machinery was at the time of shipment fit to carry the frozen meat in good condition to Europe, and that the exceptions applied only to what might happen during the voyage, and not to the original fitness of the machinery.
提单中有一项默示保证那就是船舶的冷藏设备（船舶适航应该包括与货物有关的相关设备适航，例如不是冷藏货，冷藏机械损坏不算不适航）应该在装运货物的时候适合装货，以及在提单中的免责条款只适用于在航次进行之中所发生的例如机器损坏，而不是适用于在开航时的机器备妥（本案证明了货物损坏的原因是在开航的时候冷藏设备损坏）
（2）The bill of lading contained the following provisions: "Steamer shall not be accountable for the condition of goods shipped under this bill of lading, nor for any loss or damage thereto arising from failure or breakdown of machinery, insulation, or other appliances, nor for detention, nor for the consequences of any act, neglect, default, or error of judgment of the master, officers, engineers, crew, or other persons in the service of the owners, nor for any other cause whatsoever"; and also "Loss or damage resulting from any of the following causes or perils are excepted, viz., insufficiency in packing or in strength of packages, loss or damage from coaling on the voyage, rust, vermin, breakage, leakage, sweating, evaporation, or decay, injurious effects of other goods, effects of climate or heat of holds, risk of craft, of transshipment, and of storage afloat or on shore, fire on board in hulk, in craft, or on shore, explosion, accidents to or defects in hull, tackle, boilers, or machinery, or their appurtenances, barratry, jettison, neglect, default or error in judgment of the master, mariners, engineers, or others in the service of the owners; collision, stranding, or other perils of the seas, rivers, or navigation of whatever nature or kind and howsoever caused, and accidents, loss, damage, delay, or detention, from any act or default of the Egyptian Government or the administration of the Suez Canal.
（3）LORD ESHER M.R:But it applies only to the state of things existing at the commencement of the voyage, and not to anything which may happen after the voyage has begun.这个默示只适用于在航次开始前发生的事情，不适用与任何的在航次开始以后发生的事情（默示适航保证也需合理，普通法下适航责任比较严格，海牙规则下是合理勤勉，但是两者适航的时间是一样的在开航前和开航当时）
（4）KAY L.J But Lord Blackburn says it is ordinarily called a question of seaworthiness, and the warranty implied is, not an engagement that the shipowners will do their best to make the ship fit for the purpose of the particular voyage, but a warranty that she is absolutely fit at the time when the goods are shipped. 法官理解第5点blackburn的意见时：适航的保证不仅是船东尽最大的努力做到，而是一个保证他们必须绝对的在装货时适合（普通法下比较严格的适航责任）
（5）Steel v. State Line Steamship CoLord Blackburn (at p. 86)：
I take it, my Lords, to be quite clear, both in England and in Scotland, that where there is a contract to carry goods in a ship, whether that contract is in the shape of a bill of lading, or any other form, there is a duty on the part of the person who furnishes or supplies that ship, or that ship's room, unless something be stipulated which should prevent it, that the ship shall be fit for its purpose. That is generally expressed by saying that it shall be seaworthy; and I think also in marine contracts, contracts for sea carriage, that is what is properly called a 'warranty,' not merely that they should do their best to make the ship fit, but that the ship should really be fit."
（6）A. L. SMITH L.J:But if there is (as I hold there is) an implied warranty that the machinery shall be fit for its purpose when the ship sets sail, then, in my judgment,
the exceptions in no way touch that, and are no answer to a claim by the owner of the goods founded on the original unfitness of the machinery.如果在开航前有这样一个适航的默示保证存在，那么在缺乏相应明示相反条文下，提单中的免责条款 并不能免去这个默示保证
（7）船舶不仅要适航还需要适货，不同性质种类的货物所需的适航条件需要丰富的实践经验，具体问题具体分析