alasijiaxue

我认为楼主是误解那个case的意思了，如老杨最后的总结：
quote
看来，应该是在递交通知书的时候，船舶的吊杆/吊车（derrick/crane）有一座或者多座
不妥需要修理后才能使用，特别是会或多或少延误装卸货，这通知书不会有效。
unquote

kyzikos这个案子是讨论wibon条款下大雾船舶无法靠泊装卸时间起算的问题，在二审时lloyd大法官对于船舶有未准备就绪发表了一些看法，租家的律师说船舶因为大雾无法靠泊，属于船舶没有准备就绪(the vessel could not, as a matter of common sense, be said to be at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterers if she was unable to proceed by reason of fog)，

Lloyd大法官没有赞同此种说法，就船舶准备就绪，他说明："Secondly she must be ready...to load and discharge her cargo. She need not be absolutely ready, for example, by having all here cargo gear fixed up and in position. But she must be capable of being made ready, in ordinary course, by the time her cargo gear is needed. If therefore her steering gear were broken down, so that she was unable to get to her berth, or if her cargo gear were broken down, so that she was incapable of loading or discharging, the second condition would not be fulfilled."

我个人觉得这段话其实是会有点歧义的，可能您也是因为这段话得出您的结论，我读了两遍觉得法官的表述有点奇怪。lloyd大法官说不是所有的货物装卸设备需要完全准备就绪，只需要在需要使用该设备的时候( in ordinary course, by the time her gear is needed)可以使用就可，但他又说如果cargo gear有问题，无法装卸作业，还是不能满足the second condition（即船舶准备就绪）。

所以我觉得这段话有歧义之嫌（或者我理解能力不够），但我个人对以上一段话的理解是，设备不一定要完全准备就绪，但是如果租家要求马上靠泊装卸货，你的设备要能马上可被使用，符合靠泊装卸货的要求。当然，老杨评论里的最后一句话是在说例外情况了。

补充说一句，这个案子您援引的是court of appeal（二审）的裁决，但在house of lords终审时二审结果被推翻了，当然，终审只是在讨论wibon的效力问题，没有去涉及二审中lloyd法官对于机器设备准备就绪的讨论。