封港--等泊 laytime 计算/20110620

selly_li

Dear Yang ,
Good day !

Tks for yrs help and attention.
If possible,Could u kindly clear the flg matter ?

Case : vsl arrived disg port 0700lt/ fri ,but port closed due to dense fog.

Terms:
1)As mainterms of f/n, Nor tender and laytime commenced to count as standard Gencon 94.
2)Other terms as Stemmor C/p (Clause 5, Time not to count as l/d time ...incl bad weather ... beyond chrtrs control )
3)Rate: pwwd of 24 consec hrs
4)No exact words in f/n agreed by owner and chrtr ,such as " Always accessible" or " Reachable on arival"

Questions :
Should we count this period ( port closure) as laytime ?

Yr any comments wl be appretiated .

Tks
B.rgds/Selly

selly_li

Add: As Sof of disg port , which is marked clearly by words " vsl at berth working normal" (during the period of port closure)

seaswift

根据杨良宜先生2006年出版的《装卸时间与滞期费》，坏天气以船舶实际作业地点为准，我碰到类似案例，因为大风封港，同时泊位停止卸货，装卸时间停算。但是如果是泊位作业正常，那么装卸时间连续计算。

selly_li

谢谢
目前争议在：
--mainterm 只是简单指出 nor tender & laytime commence to count as gencon 94..
--其他参照 stemmor c/p ( as stemmor c/p clause 5 : ... time lost at any time by reason of all or any of the flg causes shall not to count in the l/d time or as dem ,.... "incl bad weather" and so on ... )---bad weather 属于承租人免责事项
--另外合同中未明确定 "port always accessible" or " reachable on arrival " --"任何时间可进出" / "抵达即可马上靠泊" -- 承租人认为bad weather 适用stemmor c/p clause 5 认为属于船东风险
--同时sof 上明确标识封港期间 在泊船舶正常作业
===
如果按照gencon 94，因大雾等泊（在港船舶作业）时间是要计算laytime, 目前case 有涉及其他的c/p,请问是否有类似的CASE 或者判例可以支持?

seaswift

谢谢
目前争议在：
--mainterm 只是简单指出 nor tender & laytime commence to count as gencon 94..
--其他参照 stemmor c/p ( as stemmor c/p clause 5 : ... time lost at any time by reason of all or any of  ...
selly_li 发表于 2011-6-21 21:32

==qte==
在LMLN No. 115 (1984) ，也曾报道同一判法的伦敦仲裁。
但如果是坏天气（不光是主观的害怕）不但影响船舶安全，而且船舶留在泊位装卸作业也同受影响，则后一因素可算是非好天气工作天。这种坏天气会是像台风，这会令船舶无法安全靠泊，而即使靠了泊而也再无法进行装卸作业。在Gebr. Broere v. Saras (1982) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 ，当局因坏天气封港，船舶既不准装卸，也要离开码头。Parker 大法官判承租人胜诉说：
“… laytime will be interrupted if the weather is such that it would both have prevented loading and required the vessel to leave has she been in berth.”

在上一小段的Gebr, Broere v. Saras (1982) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 436 一案中，已可看到好坏天气是针对船舶仍在装货泊位/地点为准，即真正的装卸地点（或计划装卸地点）为准。有些港口很大，港外锚地距离会是很远。特别在局部性的坏天气下，会造成这处地点下雨，那处地点不下雨的情况。这在The “Danita” (1976) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 377 已判是计划装卸泊位/地点的天气为准，该先例是装了一船散粮去印度的加尔各答（Calcutta）港。船舶滞留在离开加尔各答100 海里的Sandheads 锚地进行轻载，双方的争议是（weather working day）
“好天气工作天”是以哪里（加尔各答或者Sandheads ）的天气为准。该案例是判以加尔各答卸货地点为准，其中也提到了一个没有被报道的贵族院先例The “Machrihanish” (1906) (unreported) 判是好天气工作天只去看船坞的天气状况是否允许作业：
“It was held that the words ‘weather working day’ applied to days when weather permitted working in the dock. If the weather did not permit working in the dock, then that day was not a weather working day.”。
在这个先例船东也有争论是船长对卸货地点的天气不知情，因为船舶是停在离开100 海里的Sandheads 锚地，这会是不公平。Mocatta 大法官判是船东可以靠他的港口代理人去收集有关资料，说：
“I recognize that there is some force in what Mr. Eckersley suggests about the commercial good sense of doubting the practice ability of insisting on a close relationship between the weather in Calcutta and the time counting under the charter of a vessel waiting 100 miles away to get into Calcutta. On the other hand, as is well-known, shipowners invariably have agents at ports of discharge and there is no difficulty about a shipowner, whose ship is held up waiting at Sandheads, having a proper check kept on the weather at Calcutta during the period of his detention.”。
同样判法的伦敦仲裁LMLN No. 323 (1992) 。
这样的判法有它的公道之处，这是Parker 大法官在Gebr, Broere v. Saras 所举的例子，就是有两艘船前后相差不远抵达装港要去挂靠同一个装货泊位。由于A 船先抵达，她就直接去挂靠泊位装货。但B 船就要在锚地等待泊位了。之后不久在装货泊位下雨，无法装货共5 天之久。对A 船的承租人而言，这5 天可以不计算装货时间，因为是非好天气工作天。但对B 船而言，她也受了A 船5 天的延误而要在锚地多等5 天。如果因为她的承租人无法去豁免这5 天的装货时间损失，就看来有不公道与说不过去的地方。唯一是大家都是以装货泊位的天气为准，就A 船与B 船都可以把这5 天当成是非好天气工作天，大家就可以在同一个天气状况作出一致的对待。Parker 大法官是这样说：
“That was a case of congestion but the observation that the earlier construction did not make commercial sense for the reasons stated applies with force to the owners’ contention in this case. This can be simply demonstrated. Suppose that two vessels ‘A’ and ‘B’ arrive on two successive days at the same port under port charters. Vessel ‘A’ goes straight into berth but for five days cannot load due to inclement weather. These days do not count. If the charerer has five days for discharging he can then keep the vessel for a further five days before incurring demurrage. Vessel ‘B’, which arrives a day later, has however to wait five days due to bad weather before she can get into berth. The owner has got a bonus for the precise reasons mentioned by Lord Diplock and the situation is exactly that which he described as not making commercial sense.”。
===uqte===

所以，如果在等泊期间有坏天气，要首先跟跟代理了解装卸泊位的作业情况，如果正常作业，装卸时间连续计算，无可争议，我在实践中处理这些天气问题，都是以此为原则，其实合同条款都差不多，规范的大船东公司也会根据此原则计算装卸时间。供你参考。

跟随

解释的不错，值得学习

selly_li

5# seaswift


==
谢谢Seaswift

如果在封港期间泊位上没有船，而同一港区的其他泊位上有船正常作业。。。
以上封港等泊时间，是否可以计算？

SHINER

如果租约是泊位条款的话，如果泊位上没有船，即使在WWWW条件下，NOR只能在泊位有效递交，因此封港风险，由船东承担。