欢迎来海员网!没有海员的贡献世界上一半的人会受冻,另一半人会挨饿,关心海员,关爱海员,关注海员, 关注海员网www.ihaiyuan.com,属于中国海员自己的网站
海员网_海员之家_海员招聘网_船员网_船员之家_船员招聘网_中国海员网服务第一门户
政策问答
船员求职
船东招聘
证书查询
新闻综合
查询校企
关键字: 

秒速赛车开奖:期租合同下批注提单是否是默示义务—评The “Arctic Trader”案

发布者:中国极速赛车节|更新时间:2019-02-26 10:27:42|咨询可以加微信:cyfu01 | 141人评论)

中国极速赛车节 www.z0i7.com.cn 我要求职 我要招聘 职务晋升 办海员证 培训招生 知识更新

  在之前文章,有多篇涉及到提单的相关问题,然后日常所发生的所谓的争议总是出人意料。比如有一条F轮,航次期租给韩国某承租人;该承租人安排F轮到澳大利亚的某港口装铁矿回国内港口卸。在还船后好几天,承租人发电邮给出租人,说收货人声称在卸货期间,发现两块煤块,直径最大的大约4公分,小的一块大约2公分。代理和收获人后来继续寻找,但没有发现更多煤块。整个卸货过程中,没有停卸之类的时间延误。出租人出示了装港的货舱清洁证书及装货前的照片;出租人的协会认为证据对出租人有利。几个月后,承租人发电邮声称会派人检查货物情况;出租人也通知协会派人参加联合检验,最终未发现煤块,但货物取样化验有少许煤成份。

  其实这本来是一件非常普通,不应该成为有争议的案件,协会很显然把问题复杂化了。通常情况在期租合同下,承租人得负责提供货物,并负责货物的装卸积载及平舱,如NYPE46格式的第8条规定:

  …and Charterers are to load,stow, and trim the cargo at their expense under the supervision of the Captain…

  承租人在船长的监督下,自负费用负责货物的装载,积载和平舱。

  或NYPE93格式第8条规定:

  …and the Charterers shall perform all cargo handling,including but not limited to loading, stowing, trimming, lashing, securing,dunnaging, unlasing, discharging, and tallying, at their risk and expense, underthe supervision of the Master…

  承租人在船长的监督下,自负风险和费用负责全部货物的操作,包括但不限于装载,积载,平舱,绑扎,加固,垫舱,解绑,卸载和理货。

  F轮在航次期租合同下,承租人因此得为货物的装载积载及平舱负责,货物也由承租人或其代理人来提供;出租人需要做的是在期租合同下维持船舶适航适货,至于航次下去装载什么货物则是承租人需考虑的。在卸货过程中发现货物中有两小煤块,而且货物取样检验之后发现货物有少许煤成份,这很显然足以证明这两“多事”的煤块是货物中掺杂附带的,和出租人半点关系也没有;出租人的协会也完全没有必要和承租人的协会纠缠。如果承租人还在纠缠的话,出租人甚至可以反过来说承租人违约,本来合同约定的是去装铁矿,结果承租人提供了合同许可之外的货物-煤块。

  但是是否承租人可以说船长未尽合理义务,在大副收据或提单上做好对应的批注呢?笔者认为,就算是承租人认为有此义务,让船员在快速装货过程中,发现这么小的两多事的煤块掺杂在数万吨铁矿之中,也不是人力所能为,完全超出正常的能力范围,因此船长也可以免责。就算是这两多事的煤块在货物表面,能够构成铁矿石货物表面不良好,但在期租合同下,船长并没有默示的义务在大副收据中必须批注表面不良好的货物。因此,笔者认为Y轮所谓的争议,出租人完全可以无视承租人的所谓的货物有问题的主张。

  接下来就来看看期租合同下涉及提单批注的上诉法院案件,The “Arctic Trader” [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.449案。

  一、基本案情

  在该案中,Trade Star Line Corporation(以下简称“Star Line”)以NYPE格式将Arctic Trader轮期租给Mitsui &Co.Ltd(以下简称“Mitsui”).;Mitsui &Co.Ltd.以NYPE格式将该轮转租给J. Lauritzen A/S。J.Lauritzen A/S(以下简称“Lauritzen”)又将该轮以NYPE格式转租给Columbia Ship Management Ltd;Columbia Ship Management Ltd(以下简称“Columbia”)随后以GENCON格式与Peter Scheider G.m.b.H(以下简称“Scheider”)签订了一份从埃及的Alexandria港装载粗盐到尼日利亚的Lagos港卸的航次任务。

  所涉及NYPE格式的合同主要的条款如下:

  8. . .The Captain. . .shall be under theorders and directions of the Charterers as regards employment and agency; andCharterers are to load trim and discharge the cargo at their expense under thesupervision and responsibility of the Captain, who is to sign Bills of Ladingfor cargo as presented in conformity with Mate's. . .receipts . . .

  46. The Charterers or their agents areauthorized whenever required to sign Bills of Lading on Master's behalf in accordancewith Mate's Receipt. But Charterers to accept all consequences that mightresult from Charterers and/or their agents signing Bills of Lading not adheringto the remarks in Mate's. . .receipt.

  出租人与首承租人之间的期租合同租期为3年,增减4个月承租人有选择权;在附加条款第61条并入了海牙规则。

  在装港,Scheider委任Amon Shiping Agency(以下简称“Amon”)为他们的代理,该轮的船长于是授权Amon依据大副收据签发提单。

  在卸货港卸货的过程中,发现盐受到污染,该轮于是被尼日利亚当局扣押了四个月。在收获人和港口当局的索赔得到解决后,该轮离港的时候仍然有部分货物在船,这部分货物一个月后在Douala港卸下。

  二、争议的主要焦点

  Mitsui认为卸货延误,被港口当局扣押是由于船长授权代理签发了清洁提单所导致的,因此其索赔损害赔偿的理由是:(1)船长违反了期租合同的默示条款,当时他没有按照他应该做的那样对大副收据作出批注,并且(2)对受污染货物签发清洁提单的问题导致卸货港出现困难和延误;这扰乱了期租承租人已为船舶指定的运营计划,并因此遭受了损失。Star Line否认有此义务。当事人之间的争议被提交仲裁。

  仲裁员裁定在装货港货物的污染程度使得船长应该做出自己的判断,并对大副收据作出批注;但船长他没有这样做,并且所签发的提单同样是清洁的。仲裁员裁定,船长“被错误地说服......将货物视为处于可接受的状态”。仲裁员最终作出对承租人有利的裁决;出租人不服裁决提出上诉。

  三、法院判决

  商事法院的Tuckey法官认为,提及大副收据的理由首先是要明确船长没有义务签署不符合大副收据的提单,其次是在承租人或其代理人签署不符合大副收据的提单时向出租人提供明确的赔偿。这些条款是为了?;こ鲎馊?,而对大副收据的提及并没有协助承租人关于责任的含义的论点。

  Tuckey法官认为并非事实上合同的一方必须做出某些事情,而他对另一方的责任是合理谨慎的,对条款默示性的标准始终是必要性。在法律默示条款的情况下,因为合同的性质要求;在商业功效的情况下,因为没有它,合同将无法运作。

  I have been referred to a number of the well-known cases on implied terms which it is not necessaryfor me to refer to in this judgment. The arbitrator implied the term as amatter of law and to give the contract business efficacy. There is apresumption against implying terms, particularly as here where the parties haveentered into a carefully-drawn written contract containing the detailed termsagreed between them. The test is always one of necessity; in the case of a termimplied by law because the nature of the contract requires it; in the case of business efficacy because without it the contract will not work.

  Tuckey法官认为通过假定承租人是货物的托运人并且因此知道或应该知道它们是否处于明显良好的秩序和状态来检验是否存在责任义务是正确的;如果不是这样的话,就没有理由说明出租人有责任告诉他一些他已经知道或应该知道的事情;如果货物不是由承租人自己运送的,那么这个情况没有任何不同。最终Tuckey法官判定并不存在如仲裁员所裁定认为的,出租人对承租人有此默示的责任。

  承租人(Mitsui和Lauritzen)提出上诉,需要上诉法院进一步决定的问题是,如果货物没有以表面良好的状况运输,那么船长是否对承租人承担对大副收据作批注的义务。

  上诉法院的Evans勋爵首先分析定期租船合同和航次租船合同之间的区别,认为两者都是海上货物运输合同,不同于其他一些安排,例如出租人交出占有权给承租人的租船(光船租赁)。在航次租船合同下,出租人同意在约定的装卸多个港口之间装载,运载和卸载货物,承租人承诺他将提供货物并执行其部分装卸作业,或安排别人要做的事情。出租人根据租船合同中包含的任何条款收到商定航程的运费。

  在定期租船合同下,出租人在保留船舶所有权并保留船长和船员的雇主的同时,将船舶交给定期承租人服务一段时间。他同意在该期间内,船舶将装载此类货物并执行定期承租人指示的航程;但承租人没有义务提供任何货物或在任何航程中派遣船舶。他的承诺是,他将在租船合同期间支付商定的租金率,如果他这样做,他可以指示船舶保持有效的搁置,有时候当他没有货物可用时或者当市场租金率和价格如此决定时。

  Evans勋爵说到上述内容没有考虑混合形式,例如连续航次的程租合同,或者在一个或多个航次期间的定期租船合同,这在实践中大量使用;但因为出于目前的目的,没有必要再做分析。

  Evans勋爵认为其次就租船合同下所运载的货物签发的提单合租船合同之间的关系,提单合同是在托运人和承运人之间签订的,通常是出租人,但有时是承租人,如果该意图从该提单条款中明确说明的话。它记录了装运的事实,并证明了货物的运输条款。作为合同,它不仅可以约束出租人(或者,如果是承租人的提单,承租人或承运人)和托运人,也可以对收货人和其他可以根据商业惯例背书的第三方具有约束力。由此得出结论,当货物由非承租人运送到所租用的船上,并且向托运人签发提单时,那么这是与租船合同本身的单独合同。根据特定情况下可能达成的任何条款,租船合同是并且仍然是出租人与承租人之间的唯一合同。当承租人本人是托运人时,提单在其他事项中作为可转让收据运营,但通常不作为单独的合同运营,但如果承租人将该提单背书转给第三方,则其作为出租人和背书者之间的合同正式生效。

  Next, the relationship between a charter-party and bills of lading which may be issued in respect of goods shipped under it. The bill of lading contract is made between the shipper and the carrier, usually the shipowner but sometimes the charterer, if that intention is clear from the terms of the bill. It records the fact of shipment and it evidences the terms on which the goods are carried. As acontract, it may bind not only the shipowner (or, if a charterer's bill, the charterer or carrier) and the shipper, but the consignee and other third parties to whom it may be endorsed in accordance with commercial practice. Itfollows from this that when goods are shipped on a chartered vessel by a personwho is not the charterer, and a bill of lading is issued to the shipper, thenthat is a separate contract from the charter-party itself. Subject to whatever terms may be agreed in the particular case, the charter-party is and remains the only contract between the shipowner and the charterer. When the charterer himself is the shipper, the bill of lading operates among other things as a negotiable receipt but not usually as a separate contract, although if the charterers indorse the bill to a third party then it duly takes effect as acontract between the shipowner and the indorsee.

  关于当货物装载在所租用的船上时遵循的程序,Evans勋爵认为在实践中,实际装载操作将由现代贸易中的装卸工或其等同物执行,并且货物将在船上接收,传统上从仓库或岸上的其他存储器接收。在某些方面,这些人将作为委托人并且他们自己承担费用,但就租船合同的目的而言,即出租人与承租人之间的合同,有必要确定他们是否也作为一方的代理人或另一方是履行其各自的义务。装载完成后,需要签发相应的货物文件。通常情况下,船舶的船长或大副代表船东签发大副收据,记录船上收到的货物,以及此后向托运人签发的提单,由代表出租人的船长或由代表出租人(或承租人)正式授权的代理人签发。对于承租人来说,代表出租人签署提单是很常见的,就像本案期租合同第46条的情况一样,但作为出租人的保障,权力明确限于与大副的收据一致的提单。因此,除非与船长或大副代表他们收到的货物有关,否则出租人不能对提单下的第三方承担责任,除非对他有某种形式的表面授权。

  Evans勋爵认为该上诉仅涉及这些程序的运作,当提供装运并在船上正式收到的货物不能被恰当地描述为“明显良好的秩序和条件”时。这是提单中的不变公式,但可能出现在其上的任何明确批注(“声明”)。虽然没有标准形式的大副收据,但通常认为未批注的收据在同一意义上是“清洁的”。

  Evans勋爵认为不可避免地,对于所运货物是否处于“明显的良好状态和条件”,可能存在争论的余地。这主要取决于货物的性质及其描述方式,并可能出现涉及某种程度专业知识的问题。在本案中,共同点是船长或大副必须行使负责任和合理的船舶驾驶员的判断,但除此之外,他不需要任何专业知识;我们会认为这是正确的。仲裁员查证已经注意到,船长应该对大副收据作出批注;换句话说,他没有记录货物的实际外观,或者说它们不能被恰当地描述为具有表面良好状况的货物。

  Inevitably, there may be room for debate as to whether the goods shipped are in "apparent good order and condition", or not.This will depend primarily upon the nature of the goods and the way in whichthey are described, and questions involving some degree of expertise may arise. It is common ground in the present case that the master or chief officer must exercise the judgment of a responsible and reasonable ship's officer, but beyond this no expertise isrequired of him; and we would accept this as correct. The arbitrator found as already noted that the master ought to have claused the mate'sreceipt; in other words, he failed to record what was the actual appearance of the goods, or that they could not properly be described as being in apparent good order and condition for goods of that description.

  Evans勋爵认为当船长或大副被要求签署大副收据时,对他的雇主(出租人)有责任准确记录货物的表面状况,如果他没有这样做,他就会违反他的雇佣合同。同样,由于大副收据将或可能被用作提单的基础,而提单将在第三方手中产生单独的合同,他也可能对第三方负有同样的义务。已经建立了现成的法律,任何在提单上的表述都可能对提单的第三方引起侵权;在这个意义上也可以说,他有一个实际的或潜在的义务(基于大副收据是签发提单的基础,通常是这样)不要在上面做不准确的陈述。

  It is also accepted that the master or chief officer,when he is asked for signed mate's receipts, is under a duty to his employer,the shipowner, to record the apparent condition accurately, so that if he failsto do so he is in breach of that term of his employment. Similarly, since themate's receipt will or may be used as the basis for the bill of lading, whichwill give rise to a separate contract in the hands of third parties, he mayperhaps also owe a similar duty to those third parties. It is established lawthat any representation which is made in the bill of lading can give rise toclaims in tort as well as under the bill of lading by third parties, and so inthis sense also it may be said that he is under an actual or potential duty(depending on whether the mate's receipt is the basis on which the bill oflading is issued, as it usually is) not to make an inaccurate statement in it.

  Evans勋爵认为这项上诉提出的问题是,当要求签发大副收据时对承租人承担的责任是否与租船合同的默示条款有关,调查必须以租船合同本身的明示条款开始。Evans勋爵认为与提单本身具有合同期限的提单不同,大副收据仅对租船合同有效,而出租人的责任仅作为船上实际收到的货物的保管人。除了作为货物的不可转让收据外,其在NYPE格式等定期租船合同下的职能是划定船长(第8条)或承租人及其代理人(第46条)的权力必须代表船舶签发提单。虽然船长被授权“按照提呈”签署提单,并且承租人可能有权代表船长签字,但在这两种情况下,提单必须与大副收据(或理货员,即独立第三方)一致。

  Unlike bills of lading, which achieve a contractual life of their own, the mate's receipt has effect only in relation to the charter-party and the shipowner's liabilities as bailee of goods in factreceived on board.

  Its function under a time charter-party such as theNYPE form, apart from being a non-negotiable receipt for the goods, is todelimit the authority which the master (cl. 8) or the charterers and theiragents (cl. 46) have to issue bills of lading on behalf of the vessel. Although the master is authorized to sign bills "as presented", and the charterer may be authorized to sign on behalf of the master, in both cases thebills must be in accordance with the mate's (or tally clerks', who are independent third parties) receipts.

  Evans勋爵认为本租船合同第8条和第46条明确规定,可要求船长(或大副)签发大副收据,以便承租人代表船长签发提单的权利可以适当确定。Evans勋爵认为在海牙规则第三条第三款第三项对于托运人的责任,应按要求签发一份提单,其中载有“(c)货物的表面状况”。这需要准确的事实陈述。(我们会拒绝出租人代表律师Hamblen先生有点极端的意见,认为可以通过作出任何此类陈述来履行义务,无论是否准确。)此外,Evans勋爵认为,这是一项无条件或“绝对”的合同承诺,而不仅仅是出租人或船长必须采取合理的谨慎措施。但是,由于对货物的表面状况作出准确陈述可能涉及某种程度的技能和专业知识,尽管并非一定如此,但在这种情况下区别履行合理技能和注意作出准确的陈述,在另一方面,以及根据合理的技能和注意行使陈述的合同义务,没有实际意义。Evans勋爵认为不应忽视这样一个事实,即责任是在本案的情况下作出准确的陈述。

  The duty owed to shippers under art. III, r. 3(3) of the Hague Rules is to issue, on demand, a bill of lading which states "(c)the apparent order and condition of the goods". This requires an accuratestatement of fact. (We would reject Mr. Hamblen's somewhat extreme submissionthat the duty can be discharged by making any such statements, whether accurateor not.) It is moreover, in our judgment, an unqualified or"absolute" contractual undertaking, not merely one which the shipowner, or the master, must take reasonable care to perform. However, sincemaking an accurate statement as to the apparent order and condition of goodsmay involve some degree of skill and expertise, though it does not necessarilydo so, then in such cases the distinction between a duty to exercise reasonableskills and care in making an accurate statement, on the one hand, and a contractual duty to base the statement on the exercise of reasonable skill andcare, is of no practical relevance. But one should not, in our judgment, losesight of the fact that the duty is to make an accurate statement in the circumstances of the case.

  Evans勋爵认为如果定期承租人本身就是托运人,那么承租人建议的那种默示条款会对船长施加责任,告诉承租人/托运人他已经知道的东西,即他所装船的货物的表面状况。Evans勋爵认为接受承租人代表律师Goldstone先生的意见,即定期承租人比程租承租人更不可能为自己的账户运送货物。当对另一个出租人或一条线路的运营商有长期租约时,很可能会发生这种情况。因此,承租人代表律师Goldstone提出,默示条款的存在或其他方面应取决于这种不太可能的可能性,而应取决于实际情况,或许总是如此。他承认,在承租人也是托运人的不寻常情况下,承租人的索赔借助Mustill勋爵所谓的“因果关系无可辩驳的论证”([1988] 1 Lloyd's Rep在第421页)可能会得到满足。也就是说,承租人自己对自己货物的表明状况的陈述的正确性或其他方面的了解是造成任何错报的后果的近因。

  Evans勋爵认为下一个问题是,在承租人没有并且不太可能自己知道货物的表明状况的情况下,是否存在同意默示大副收据在发货是准确无误的说法。然后不能说该文件只会告诉承租人他已经知道的事情-除非在法律上第三方托运人的知识归于他?;痪浠八?,托运人是否就其与出租人的合同而担任承租人的代理人?Evans勋爵认为,很明显,当定期承租人根据合同第8条的运营规定指示船长接收某些货物上船,货物由承租人承担费用,虽然在监督下并可能由出租人承担风险,但是为了租船合同的目的,货物由承租人或代表承租人装载,第三方托运人应视为承租人的代理人。

  It is clear, in our judgment, that when the time charterer instructs the master, pursuant to the employment provisions of cl. 8,to receive certain cargo on board, and the cargo is loaded at the charterer'sexpense, although under the supervision and maybe at the risk of the shipowner,then the cargo is loaded by or on behalf of the charterer for the purposes ofthe charter-party, and a third party shipper should be regarded as the charterer's agent accordingly.

  Evans勋爵认为由此可见,承租人是否也是托运人,默示一条款也有同样的反对意见,即船长或大副将告知承租人他已经知道或被认为知道的内容。Evans勋爵认为在某些情况下,定期承租人可以正确地断言出租人通过船长或大副有义务签发大副收据,并根据提出的要求准确地签署。例如,假设装载的货物处于表面状况良好,并且船长或其代理人经船长授权代表他们签署提单。他们这样做的权力受到大副收据的限制(参见第46条),并且有很好的商业理由可以解释为什么这些提到应该在装运后立即签署和签发。如果船长拒绝签署大副收据,或者在合理的时间之后错误地坚持要求,如必要可参(The Boukadora,[1989] 1Lloyd's Rep.393案)的判决,或在此之前不合理地推迟那么很可能有人认为,出租人因此违反了租船合同的默示条款,并对承租人承担任何后续损失的责任。但这不是现在的情况,Evans勋爵认为,在本案的情况下,这种论点是否能够成功,是否有必要表达任何最终观点。事实上,现在的情况恰恰相反:货物受到污染,当他不应该这样做时,船长被“说服”(仲裁员的话)签署清洁大副收据。

  There might be circumstances where the time-chartercould properly assert that the shipowners, through the master or chief officer,were under a duty to sign and issue a mate's receipt and to do so accurately,on a request being made. Suppose, for example, that the cargo loaded was in apparentgood order and condition, and the charterers or their agents were authorised bythe master to sign bills of lading on his behalf. Their authority to do so islimited by reference to the mate's receipt (cf. cl. 46) and there are goodcommercial reasons why the bills should be signed and issued promptly aftershipment. If the master refused to sign a mate's receipt, or wrongly insistedon clausing it after having a reasonable time, if necessary, to take advice(cf. The Boukadora, [1989] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 393), or delayed unreasonably beforedoing so, then it could well be argued that the shipowners were thereby inbreach of an implied term of the charter-party and liable to the charterers forany consequent loss. But that is not the present case, and it is not necessary,in our view, to express any final view as to whether this argument, in suchcircumstances, would succeed. The present case, in fact, is the converse: thecargo was contaminated, and the master was "persuaded" (thearbitrator's word) to sign clean mate's receipts when he ought not to have doneso.

  Evans勋爵认为如果存在这样的默示条款,则必须表明,如果要求这样做并且必要时允许承租人或其代理人代表船舶签发提单,则船长或大副将签署大副收据,说明船上收到的货物的表面状况。如果他们处于表面状况良好,那么收据是否包含该明确声明将无关紧要。如果他们不是,那么如果收据是沉默的,可能有必要考虑是否有一个默示的声明。这个问题在本案中不会出现,因为查证船长应该批注收据但船长错误地没有这样做。

  If there is such an implied term, it must be to the effect that, if requested to do so and if necessary to enable the charterers ortheir agents to issue bills of lading on behalf of the ship, the master orchief officer will sign mate's receipts which state the apparent order and conditions of the goods received on board. If they were in apparent good orderand condition, then it will be irrelevant whether the receipt contains that express statement, or not. If they were not, then if the receipt is silent itmay become necessary to consider whether there is an implied statement to that effect. That question does not arise here, because it is found that the master should have claused the receipts and wrongly failed to do so.

  Evans勋爵认为从仲裁员的调查结果可以明显看出,即使可以默示,这一用语与本案的情况无关。Evans勋爵认为这么说是有两个原因。首先,远非要求船长签署并签发包含货物表面状况的准确陈述的收据,托运人或承租人的代理人“说服”他签发包含不准确陈述的收据。如果要求,我们不会看到船长如何做出虚假和未经授权的声明可能构成违反职责的准确陈述。其次,尽管仲裁员查证代理人签发了清洁提单,期望船长像他一样签发清洁的大副收据,但承租人自己或由其代理人(包括托运人)知道提单应该被批注?;痪浠八?,承租人的损失来自于签发清洁提单的问题,而这些提单本来应该被批注,而租船合同的目的则是承租人自己的责任。

  It is apparent from the arbitrator's findings that such a term, even if it could be implied, is not relevant in the circumstancesof the present case. We say this for two reasons. First, far from requestingthe master to sign and issue receipts which contained an accurate statement ofthe apparent order and condition of the goods, the shippers or perhaps thecharterers' agent "persuaded" him to issue receipts which containedan inaccurate statement. We do not see how the master's willingness to make a false and unauthorized statement could constitute a breach of duty to make anaccurate statement, if requested to do so. Secondly, even though as the arbitrator found the agents issued clean bills of lading in the expectation that the master, as he did, would issue clean mate's receipts, the charterers knew, either themselves or by their agents, including the shippers, that thebills of lading ought to have been claused. In other words, the charterers'losses flowed from the issue of clean bills, which ought to have been claused,and for the purposes of the charter-party that was the responsibility of the charterers themselves.

  法官提出的默示条款载有合理注意的提法,Evans勋爵认为,这本身就足以说明为何不应默示该条款。我们从承租人的动议通知中引用的这个词并没有受到这个缺陷的影响,但是它的措辞与上诉法院判断的推理不同,因为给出的理由是承租人可能默示的唯一一个条款。因此,Evans勋爵认为,这个租船合同中不应默示任何建议的条款,并且唯一可能默示的条款不能使承租人在本案中取得成功。虽然法律问题可能得到合格的肯定答案,但这并不能得出法官的判决错误或现在的上诉应该成功的结论。

  最后,Evans勋爵认为应该参考两个权威判例,即The “Almak”案和The“Nogar Marin”案,它们在论证中被广泛引用。在The “Almak”案中,船长不小心签署了一份提呈的提单,该提单是在一个错误的日期的航次租船合同下签署的,它由独立的托运人提呈(见第561页)。承租人声称因违反租船合同当事人的默示条款而遭到损害赔偿,据称船长的粗心大意已被破坏,但有人认为没有任何此类条款可以默示。Mustill法官除其他外还特别指出(1)船长对其雇主,船东以及可能对第三方的责任不相关;(2)该条款的目的是?;こ凶馊嗣馐芷渥陨泶砦蟮暮蠊?,如果他们自己是托运人,则不应默示;(3)如果托运人是独立的当事人,他们就不能处于更好的地位;(4)即使出租人有责任,他们也有权从承租人那里追偿相应的赔偿金。因此承租人的索赔不成立,承租人应自行承担损失(第561页判决)。The“Nogar Marin”案也是涉及了一个程租合同。当它们应该被批注时,由船舶(非承租人)的代理人签发了清洁提单。该承租人运送自己的货物。船长签发了清洁大副收据,这些收据应该被批注。当船舶被收货人扣押时,出租人遭受了损失,这些收货人被清洁提单误导了货物的表明状况,出租人向承租人索赔损失或赔偿,声称承租人违反了提呈船长签署的清洁收据或提单所产生的默示条款。Mustill勋爵关于大副收据程序的说明见报告第420-421页,强调这是一份简单的收据,没有合同效力,出租人的索赔不成立。

  如上所述,Evans勋爵认为这两个案子都涉及与本案不同的问题。判决涉及违约和因果关系以及默示赔偿的问题。Evans勋爵认为这个案子的判决都没有任何内容与上面所述的结论不一致,除非可能是The “Nogar Marin”案中的以下段落:

  [The mate's receipt] is not part of the mechanism established by the charterparty, which does notstipulate that it is to be signed "as presented" or indeed at all (p.420).

  基于所给出的理由,Evans勋爵认为在本案中,定期期租合约可能并非如此。第8条和第46条表明,在某些情况下,收据确实有必要的部分可以参与。但如果这是错误的,Mustill勋爵的判决提供了另一个理由,认为租船合同没有义务签署收据。Evans勋爵认为这位学识渊博的法官得出了与上诉法院所做的相同的结论,原因虽然不同且更简洁,但基本相同。因此,承租人的上诉被驳回。

  总结:

  在本案中,Evans勋爵关于发货人可被视为是承租人的代理人的观点,Sumption勋爵在NYK Bulkship (Atlantic) NV v Cargill International SA[2016] UKSC 20 (11 May 2016)案中也提到如下。

  In Trade Star Lines Corp v Mitsui & Co Ltd(The Arctic Trader )[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 449, the legal status of the shipper was considered in the context of an argument about the implication of terms. The details of the argument do not matter. Evans LJ, delivering the judgment of the court, observed at p 459:

  “It is clear, in our judgment, that when the time charterer instructs the master,pursuant to the employment provisions of clause 8, to receive certain cargo onboard, and the cargo is loaded at the charterer’s expense, although under thesupervision and maybe at the risk of the shipowner, then the cargo is loaded by or on behalf of the charterer for the purposes of the charter-party, and a third party shipper should be regarded as the charterer’s agent accordingly.”

  依据The “Arctic Trader” 案的判决的权威,可以看出在期租合同下,出租人或船长并没有默示的义务在大副收据中对于表面不良好的货物必须批注。在期租合同下,发货人可被视为是承租人的代理人,承租人有装卸货物的责任,其知道或应当知道货物的真实情况,如果承租人不拒绝而是提呈了清洁的大副收据或提单交由船长签署,由此所带来的后果承租人无权要求出租人赔偿。

  出租人只在提单合同下,对无辜的第三方收货人才有责任义务去批注表面不良好的货物。如The “Goodpal”[2000] 1 Lloyd’sRep.638案,Colman法官认为收货人不能被视为是承租人的代理人。在任何情况下,即不是承租人也不是任何第三方的行为他们该负责的,给予任何指示,许可的或不被许可的,造成出租人在第二个港需对提单持有人负责。这是而且仅仅是出租人自己的决定,同意第一个卸港收货人的要求从而导致了在第二个卸港发生短货;被第二个卸港的收货人索赔是由出租人他们自己的行为,疏忽或过失造成的,因此该出租人自己承担责任。

  在航运实务中,提单的签发是重要的一环,然而提单签发涉及到很多风险和责任问题。承租人或其代理人所提呈(as presented)的提单,是否应该签发?如果租船合同条款中明确要求船长应该拒绝会影响签发大副收据或提单的货物,但又约定船长可以在大副收据或提单上作批注,此时如果货物有问题,船长是否可以拒绝?这种情况出现在The “Sea Success”[2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.692案中,但Aikens法官认为船长应该选择在大副收据或提单上作批注而不是选择拒绝货物。情况和The “David Agmashenebeli”[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.92案情况类似,在该案中,Colman法官认为虽然船长有权利对少部分影响清洁提单的货物作批注,但是无权对所有货物都作批注,船长的过激行为构成违约。

  鉴于船长坚持在大副收据或提单上作批注可能存在的问题,笔者建议,在期租合同下,船长最好是听从承租人的指示,是否需要作批注及如何作批注,批注什么内容,都去寻求承租人的书面确认。而一旦在承租人的要求之下,签发了清洁的大副收据或提单,结果导致在卸港被收货人索赔,那么依据Sumption勋爵在The “Kos”案中的解释,依赖NYPE格式第8条的默示索赔权,出租人将可以找承租人追偿损害赔偿。

  然而,如Evans勋爵认为所说,在提单下,船长或出租人对无辜的第三方收货人有责任义务去批注表面状况不良好的货物,否则将面临被索赔的风险。但是如果货物买卖合同本身就已经规定了货物的品质,比如粮食货物规定碳化的百分比,鉴于通常情况下必须签发清洁提单,那么收货人是否可以反过来声称船长未尽义务去批注提单而反找出租人索赔?这类问题将在后续文章继续说明,因为往往这种情况下存在禁反言,从而收货人无权再找出租人索赔。

 ?。ü愀妫耗芗岢挚吹阶詈蟮?,也不妨看看之前的汇编系列,如果有需要可添加笔者个人微信: alexzhan1981;也欢迎有任何实务方面的问题沟通交流。)
  


  修改完成于2019.02.24

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 Alex (微信公众号 航运佬)


最新海员招聘
木匠 发布时间:2016-07-15 15:58:07
水手 发布时间:2016-07-15 15:56:32
木匠 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:54:37
大厨 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:53:16
白皮三副 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:52:19
最新海员简历
陈水手 发布时间:2019-05-06 13:57:20
王帅 发布时间:2019-05-06 16:17:16
龙永权 发布时间:2019-04-29 12:07:05
郭怡桐 发布时间:2019-04-28 10:00:41
俞大副 发布时间:2019-04-28 09:52:56
会员中心 我要求职 我要招聘 职务晋升 办海员证 培训招生 知识更新 广告投放

海员网站长 点击这里与海员招聘网客服联系 652522234 | 合作请来信

版权归┊中国极速赛车节 中国极速赛车节 中国极速赛车节 海员论坛 船东招聘 船务公司招聘 中国极速赛车节网站所有。

海员网常年法律顾问:李晓曦 苏ICP备12072381号-1 海员网还提供船讯网船舶动态查询网站地图

中国极速赛车节
  • 带着任务登台的人,他们提供的数据是成问题的。例如那位林毅夫。对这类人,要睁大眼睛,保持高度警惕。 2019-05-22
  • 阜阳一男子酒驾被查:竟是网逃人员且无证驾驶 2019-05-22
  • 8岁孩子唱给天堂妈妈一首歌 听的韩红撕心裂肺 2019-05-17
  • 高培勇任中国社会科学院副院长(图简历) 2019-05-17
  • 小长假 新疆接待游客353.6万人次 2019-05-10
  • 尧都农商银行全力推进服务“三农”工作 2019-05-10
  • 回复@大雨582:任何人的自由发展都是跟他的能力意愿行动及生成的结果平滑对接的。 2019-05-09
  • 袁隆平:多养活5亿人是我的梦想研究 水稻 2019-05-09
  • 股市跌得再狠,照样削尖脑袋想去圈钱,不宰股民真是白不宰。 2019-05-06
  • 端午将至,你闻到粽香了吗? 2019-04-29
  • 主持人资料库――杨澜 2019-04-29
  • 湿热天气毒蛇出没!蛇咋成了邪恶的化身? 2019-04-26
  • 兴业银行向绿色金融改革创新试验区投放绿色融资2500亿 2019-04-14
  • 杭报集团党委书记、社长董悦祝贺人民日报创刊70周年 2019-04-06
  • 端午期间 重庆高速总车流量达254万辆次 2019-04-06
  • 450| 805| 368| 923| 612| 908| 368| 248| 684| 319| 522| 469| 682| 129| 446|