返回列表 回复 发帖

请求助,以下LAYTIME如何划分责任。

货物:2600M3的原木板材
卸货港: SUBIC/菲律宾
卸货条款: 800M3/PWWD SHEXUU
天气情况:下雨
争议点:我船到SUBIC锚地后等泊,在泊的船只(卸货是粮食)雨天就卸货速度很慢或者没法卸货,导致我船在锚地等泊7天后,才得以靠泊作业。现在租家坚持,下雨天在PWWD条件下,应该全部扣除。但是船东理解是原木板材卸货不受雨水影响,可以正常卸货,下雨对前船的影响导致我船无法靠泊,所以下雨等泊的时间应该由租家承担。请教,这个下雨等待的7天,该有哪方承担?
看一下这个回答吧
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===

是应该扣除吧
返回列表