船早于LYCN 递交NOR, 租家接受NOR 与否是不是起算LAYTIME 的前提

schoendl

航次租约中规定，NOR TO BE TENDERED WWWW. LAYTIME TO COUNT 12 HOURS AFTER NOR TENDERED AND ACCEPTED. LOADING RATE: 8000MT PWWD +12 HOURS TT

我轮早于装期3天抵达装港，并递交了NOR。（LYCN 22-26TH MAY, 我轮19TH MAY 抵达）

我方观点， 我轮19日NOR 递交有效， 12 HOURS TT 递交NOR 以后算, 到0001LT 22ND MAY 可以起算LAYTIME. 另我方也认为LAYTIME TO COUNT 12 HOURS AFTER NOR TENDERED AND ACCEPTED. 这个写法的解释是， 不在于租家的接受NOR 与否， 只要是有效递交即可。

租家观点， 我轮19日NOR 递交有效， 但是LAYTIME 必须在租家接受NOR 12小时后起算。装期开始后才能接受NOR， 所以他们认为1200LT 22ND MAY 起算LAYTIME.

请高手指点。

frankiexu

什么时候开始装的货呀？

schoendl

装货开始时间是5月28日。

frankiexu

应该这样理解，TT 12hrs是船舶靠码头后需要准备的时间，理应在laytime里扣除。船东从0000l/22nd起算的话也要扣除12hrs , 和租家从1200l起算是一样的。

seaswift

我认为租家的说法是有道理的，船早于layday之前到的时间理应由船东承担，这个跟nor什么时候递交无关，船可以到了即可以递交，但是只能被认为layday的0000递交有效，这也是目前实物中的操作的普遍做法。既然合同约定了laycan，租家为什么要承担laycan之前的时间，要是船早到半年，装货一直不开始，租家也要承担你这半年的滞期费吗？

schoendl

LAYCAN 前等待的时候都是船东的损失。现在的争议是12个小时的通知时间是否从LAYTIME 里面扣除。LAYTIME 是从LAYCAN 开始0000起算， 还是0000+12个小时再起算?一般的TT 的写法是 LAYTIME TO COUNT 12HOURS AFTER NOR TENDERED. 这样的写法的话，有判例说， TT 也是可以在LAYCAN 前进入计算的。这个合同的写法是LAYTIME TO COUNT 12HOURS AFTER NOT TENDERED AND ACCEPTED. 所以租家的接受NOR 是否影响到了LAYTIME 的起算。按照杨教授滞期费一书的观点，只要有效递交， 不管接受与否。是否可以应用到我们这个CASE. 谢谢！！！

delphine

Commencement of Laytime 一书2006年第4版，第6章第5节,标题是"Notice of readiness tendered prior to the laydays"，有一段是这样写：

In the absence of any provision in a charter prohibiting the giving of a notice before the laydays, there was no reason why such a notice should not be given and be valid, and many reasons why it should. The purpose of a notice of readiness was to warn the shippers that the ship was available and ready to start receiving cargo. The fact that they might get that information before the laytime clock started to tick was irrelevant. That had been held to be the position in a number of arbitrations both in New York and London.

我个人是倾向楼主的观点，nor提前递交有效，0001LT 22ND MAY 可以起算LAYTIME，无需再加12小时。laycan只是laytime起算的区间范围，不是租家“接受”nor的区间范围，除非合同另有明示条款规定。

该书的详细内容，相关的案例，楼主可以找专业律师如杨大明先生咨询。网络讨论，精力和条件有限，我只能就感兴趣的问题随意说说，代替不了正规的商务处理程序。仅供参考。

schoendl

这个CASE, 我们作为二船东入保了租家责任险和FDD 险。

我们找协会律师初步咨询过意见。他们的意见如下： A NOR which has been tendered before the vessel's laycan ( also called a non-contractual NOR) does not become invalid because of this. However, it will only become effective at the earliest possibility under the C/P.  In other words, your Charterers are right to say that turn time will count as from the earlier date of laycan so laytime to count 12hrs after notice of readiness accepted on 1200LT 22nd May 2012.  

对于协会说的NOR BECOME EFFECTIVE AT THE EARLIEST POSSILITY UNDER THE CP我们并不认可。NOR 讲的是个船READY 的事实，计算LAYTIME 是还需要看合同其他条款的约束。递交和接受NOR都是基于船READY这样的事实。租家是否OBLIGED TO ACCEPT THE NOR BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF LAYCAN???

求杨教授或者杨大明律师的联系方式，想找他们咨询下。

delphine

继续我在7楼的意见，“除非合同另有规定”如何理解，举一个某国际电厂的煤炭运输格式合同（VOY C/P）相关条款：

Article 13
LOADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Notice of readiness (hereinafter referred to as N/R) shall be tendered during office hours within the specific laydays after the vessel arrives at loading port whether in berth or not, provided the vessel is in free pratique, customs clearance by port authorities and ready to receive cargo in every respect. If N/R is accepted during the time other than normal office hours, N/R shall be deemed to be accepted at the beginning of office hours of next working day.
……

这是对租家有利的条款。

delphine

如果没有这样的明示条款，BIMCO的一篇文章Tendering NOR before first layday，观点是倾向于楼主的意见，与7楼引用的意思差不多。限于版权，我节录这篇文章部分内容如下：

Tendering NOR before first layday

......

In a London arbitration award summarized in Lloyd's Maritime Law Newsletter No. 103 of 13 October 1983 it was held inter alia that:

"It was often thought that a notice of readiness could not be given before the commencement of laydays under a charter, but that was incorrect unless there was an express provision to that effect. In the absence of such a provision, a valid notice might be given at any time, but the laytime itself could not commence before the date given in the charter."

A similar decision was reached in the London arbitration award summarized on page 20 of BIMCO Bulletin 3/92 and there are several other arbitration awards rendered in London, as well as in New York, upholding this position. This being so, the general position is, when the charterparty does not contain express provisions governing matters differently, that:

- Notice of readiness may be given at any time before first layday

- Charterers are entitled to the agreed notice time which may, however, run and expire before first layday

- Laytime will not commence to count before first layday.

christberry

同意楼主的观点，就如DELPHINE所说，如果合同没有特殊规定，NOR可以在任何时间递交，早于LAYCAN也可以，如果递交NOR的时间早于FIRST LAYDAY超过TT TIME,LT 从FIRST LAYDAY第一天0000起算，如果晚于，就从NOR递交再加TT时间开始算，这个在杨老师的《装卸时间与滞期费》一书中有明确的描述。
我觉得楼主和租家主要的争议在”AFTER NOR TENDERED AND ACCEPTED“，楼主理解或是表述有误，这种情况下，还是得NOR被接受了才能起算LT的，但是租家有责任很快的去接受一个有效的NOR,所以实际上NOR TENDERED和ACCEPTED的时间应该是一样的。NOR在LAYCAN之前递交，只要没有其他问题和条款，是完全合理合法有效的，而你的租家也同意他是有效的了，他们没有任何理由不在19号接受NOR.
另外楼主的保赔协会也太水了吧。。。换一家吧。