CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
Notice in advance of arrival 抵达之前通知/预抵通知
3.255 It sometimes happens that a charter provides for one or more notices to be given in advance of arrival. Thus, a vessel may be required to signal her ETA at the discharge port on sailing from the load port and, say, 72, 48 and 24 hours before arrival. Failure to give any of these will not prevent the vessel from giving notice of readiness on arrival, but, if any delay is caused thereafter which can be shown to arise from the failure to give notice, then the charterer will be able to claim damages for breach of the notice provision of an amount equal to that which would otherwise have been claimed by the shipowner as demurrage.
3.256 An interesting illustration of these principles, where there was an express provision relating to the consequences that would ensue in the event of a breach, is provided by London Arbitration 1/94.
3.257 Here the charter required a total of seven notices at speci?ed periods between 15 days and 24 hours to be given to both the discharging port agents and the charterers. In the event of the owners or master ‘‘failing to give the aforementioned notices’’, 24 hours’ extra laytime was to be allowed. In the event, the discharging port agents received all but one of the required notices (the 15 days’ notice) and the charterers three (the closest to the vessel’s arrival being 72 hours’ notice). Nevertheless, the charterers claimed an additional 24 hours’ laytime. In their ?nding, the tribunal held that the charterers were kept very adequately informed of the ship’s ETA from a practical point of view and therefore they refused to hold that the notice provision should be read as a failure to give any notices at all. For the charterers to have succeeded, there would have had to have been a substantial failure which arguably might have had some effect on the operations of the vessel at the discharging port.
3.258 The practical effect of the clause was therefore that, if there was a substantial breach, it provided its own remedy by way of increased laytime rather than damages at large, which would have been the position had it not so provided.
Time lapse between readiness and commencement of laytime
3.259 It is commonplace for a charter to provide for there to be a delay before laytime commences, either from when the vessel is actually ready to load or discharge, as the case may be, having reached the speci?ed destination or from when the notice of readiness is given. This delay, which is intended to give time to prepare for the loading/discharging of the cargo, may either be a straight period of time or be ?xed by reference to a point in time or to an external event. An example of the last of these is provided by John Sadd & Sons Ltd v. Bertram Ratcliffe & Co, where the formula was: ‘‘Time for discharging to count from ?rst high water on or after arrival providing suf?cient water at the berth’’.
3.259在租船合同中对装卸时间起算前的延迟间隔时间做出规定，这已是老生常谈的事。这一间隔时间要么是从船舶实际上做好装货或卸货准备开始，视情况而定，如果她已抵达了指定的目的地；要么是从递交了准备就绪通知书时开始。这种延迟间隔，意图是给予一段用于做装货/卸货准备的时间，要么是纯粹的一段时间，要么是固定的时间段一直要持续到某个时间或某一外部情况出现时为止。John Sadd & Sons Ltd v. Bertram Ratcliffe & Co案曾为后一种情况提供了一个实例，其计算准则是：‘卸货时间从第一次高潮或者抵达后泊位开始起算，如果泊位水深足够的话?！?br>
3.260 Most tanker charters contain a provision to the effect that laytime shall commence six hours after laytime has been given or upon the vessel’s arrival in berth, whichever is earlier.
3.261 In a case called Owners of Borg v. Darwen Paper Co, the relevant charter provided for time to commence 24 hours after arrival at or off the port. One of the questions before the court was how was the 24 hours to be reckoned. Of the argument that was raised, Rowlatt J said:
It is not contended that if the hours began to run they are not interrupted because a non-working day intervenes. It is not contended that they are not to be interrupted if wet weather intervenes, or that if the non-working hours at night intervene, but it is said the 24 hours must begin upon a working day.
Having pointed out that the time that has to elapse before laytime commences is totally different from the time that has to count after discharge has begun, the judge continued:
I think the plain course for me is to say that what is meant is that the consignee shall have 24 hours of ordinary time, from Monday to Tuesday, or Tuesday to Wednesday, or whatever it may be before his time for discharge begins.
If at the moment discharge begins you ?nd yourself in the middle of the night or a holiday, the work does not naturally begin until the ordinary working hours come round.
If, therefore, the charter provides for a period of time to elapse and the end of that period occurs in what would be an excepted period during the running of laytime, then laytime will begin at the end of that excepted period.
3.261在称为Owners of Borg v. Darwen Paper Co的案中，相关租船合同规定：时间从抵达港口或港外的24小时后起算。提交法院的一个问题就是这24小时应该怎样计算？就提出的争议， Rowlatt法官说：
3.262 In Metalimex Foreign Trade Corporation v. Eugenie Maritime Co Ltd, the question that arose for consideration was the meaning of the following clause:
6. Time for loading to count from 8 a.m. 48 hours after the ship is reported and ready . . . and for discharging from 8 a.m. 24 hours after ship is reported...
At both the loading and discharging ports, notice was given at 09 00. The shipowners claimed that time ran from 09 00 two days later at load port and one day later at discharge port. The charterers, on the other hand, said that time counted from 08 00 three days later at load port and two days later at discharge port, i.e. that time should commence from the next 08 00 after the requisite period had elapsed. McNair J said the shipowners were right:
It seems to me that proper business effect is given to the position of the respective parties if one says that the purpose of this is quite clearly to secure that the charterers get the dual protection suggested by the shipowners, namely 48 hours clear before the loading time shall start and that the expiry of the 48 hours shall not start at some inconvenient time, and one should accordingly, read: ‘‘from 8 a.m.’’ as ‘‘not earlier than 8 a.m.’’. Well, on the whole, that seems to me to be a reasonable construction which does not do undue violence to any of the language or ?gures used in the clause.
3.262在Metalimex Foreign Trade Corporation v. Eugenie Maritime Co Ltd（The Nedon）案，提出要求探讨的争议就是关于下面这个条款的含义：
3.263 In London Arbitration 12/01, where the charter on the Sugar Charterparty 1969 form provided for laytime to start next regular working period commencing before 15 00 after receipt of NOR, the tribunal held that laytime commenced at 13 00, when the stevedores returned from their meal break, although that was in the middle of their shift, rather than 17 00 as the charterers argued, which was when the ?rst overtime period began.
3.263 在报道的伦敦仲裁2001年第12号案，是以1969年食糖租船合同格式范本签订的租船合同，其中规定：装卸时间是从收到准备就绪通知书后下一个常规工作时间期间内15点之前开始， 仲裁庭裁定：装卸时间是从1300开始，是装卸工人吃完午饭后返回工作的时间点，尽管这是在工班中间，而不是承租人争论的1700，这是第一段开始加班的时间点。