租约下市场价格的计算

edwardnews

请教杨先生一个问题，恳请拨冗回答：

在期租合同中，如果租约约定的承租时间是2年，比如从2008年1月1日至2010年12月31日，租金为1,000美元/天。结果承租人在2010年7月1日提前还船。

想请教杨先生的是，该如何确定此时的市场价格(market price)以计算船东的损失呢？我想到的有两种计算方式，但不知道哪种是正确的：

(1) 在市场上找一个在早还船这一天(即2010年7月1日)签订的具有类似租约条款和相同租期(即也是两年)的租约，该租约中约定的租金即为确定船东因早还船而产生损失的价格？还是

(2) 在市场上找一个在早还船这一天签订的具有类似租约条款的租约，租期为半年(即从2010年7月1日至2010年12月31日)，则该租约中约定的租金即为市场价格？

貌似书和判例也没有对此问题有明确地解释。

非常期待杨先生的答案。感谢！

SHINER

这条船本身就有一个MARKET PRICE.
The Noel Bay [1989] 1 LLR 361, where Mr Justice Staughton held that the owners were entitled to be placed in the same financial position as they would have enjoyed if the contract had not been breached. The judge also highlighted the common problem that almost invariably arises where there is a substitute fixture, namely that the substitute voyage lasts longer than the voyage under the original charter party. The solution commonly adopted is to take a proportion of the profits on the substitute voyage to set off against the profits lost on the original voyage: “otherwise one would be involved in calculations to the end of the ship's working life.”

admin

感谢问题。杨先生的答案应该是（1）中的做法，即还船一天在市场上两年租约期的租金。具体请见The "Johnny" (1977) 2 Lloyd's Rep. 1。虽然该案例是针对延迟还船的问题，但是其中确立的原则也是适用，即“like must be compared with like”。另也可参阅杨大明所著的《期租合同》一书第123页6.4.2段。

edwardnews

Many thanks indeed for Mr. Yang's prompt answer.

I note that the majority of the Court of Appeal in The Johnny [1977] 2 Lloyd's Rep 1 provided a general principle on the issue of "appropriate market rate". I also note that Ernest Yang on Time Charter states the same case for explaining this particular issue. However, since Lord Denning MR was the dissenting judge, I quite doubt whether this problem is well settled by the English courts.

It is obvious that, as Mr. Yang's explanation, both the High Court (Mr. Justice Donaldson) and the majority of the Court of Appeal took the views that the relevant market rate is the market rate for the same period as the original time charter. However, Lord Denning, agreeing with the umpire of the tribunal, stated that the appropriate rate was that for a time charter trip for a voyage at that time.

One interesting point is that Lord Denning believed that his point of measurement should be acceptable from commercial reality. More interesting thing is that there is very little authority on this important issue thereafter (although I note that there was a London arbitration case share the same answer as the majoirty of The Jonny).

It appears that there is no further case on this issue has been reported to the public domain. I am interested in why no more charterers or owners challenge this point since it was only a majority judgment with Lord Denning's dissent.

Look forward to hearing Mr. Yang's comments further. Thank you very much indeed!

admin

以下是针对提问者的进一步回复：

“很高兴看到你对这个问题已经有了比较全面的研究与认识！正如你所讲在The "Johnny" 之后，对于这个问题是再没有相关的先例，所以尽管Lord Denning有不同的意见，但是仍是以多数意见为准。在讲到任何有关这一问题的先例，也只有依从这个先例的判决。由于这是上诉庭的先例，要去做出改变只有英国的最高院（以前的贵族院）。在今天的法律制度下，恐怕这种性质的争议不太容易去到最高院。这表示严格来说仲裁员作为一个低级一些的审判庭，如果适用法是英国法，就必须依照（除非能够作出事实上的区别），这是游戏规则。

话说回来，市场价格是要以“apple to apple comparison”来决定，这在其他案件里也是如此适用。例如金融海啸之后市场大跌，很多承租人提早还船，对于一个持有一份5年或更长时间的期租租约的船东来讲，在金融海啸期间是根本找不到具有相同时间长度的租约的市场价格，因为根本没有承租人还愿意签订这样长时间的租约。所以许多这种争议就要根据各别船东的实际损失来计算。但即使在金融海啸期间，还是有租船市场，只不过在时间上就短得多。但那些TCT或者3个月或者半年的租约的租金价格不具有参考价值。所以，这还是显示了以市场价格作为损失计算的办法还是要遵循“同类比较”的原则。”

duiduitang

再问杨老师：
是否应考虑受害方减小损失之义务？
比如有个更值钱的VOY. TC.