hengzhi10464

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