<thead id="18dhi"></thead>

      <code id="18dhi"></code>
      1. <nav id="18dhi"></nav>
      <tr id="18dhi"><sup id="18dhi"></sup></tr>

        您現在的位置:首頁 >> 綜合資料 >> 內容

        從船長是否有權拒絕過SULU海說起

        時間:2018/3/26 14:34:30 點擊:

          內容提示:近期有承租人要求船長過SULU海以節省距離,如果船長選擇從南中國海或菲律賓東部過再去西澳,主張所有繞航的時間及燃油消耗都歸出租人承擔。本文從實際情況出發,結合相關的條款來說一說涉及海盜方面的問題。...

        本文轉自微信公眾號:航運佬  作者:Alex


        【摘要】近期有承租人要求船長過SULU海以節省距離,如果船長選擇從南中國海或菲律賓東部過再去西澳,主張所有繞航的時間及燃油消耗都歸出租人承擔。本文從實際情況出發,結合相關的條款來說一說涉及海盜方面的問題。

        【關鍵詞】海盜、Sulu sea、停租、保費

        續之前《從螺旋槳被廢棄纜繩纏繞說起》的文章之后,那篇文中的X輪,按照承租人指示,離開Dangjin后南下。X輪船上有足夠跑一個西澳回國的航次,鑒于近期市場下滑比較嚴重,因此承租人又想先空放到新加坡加油,然后等待市場起色。該承租人在沒找到合適的航次任務時,還不忘保留一些權利,挖空心思想從出租人那里找理由扣錢。

        在X輪南下的途中,該承租人發了一封如下電郵給船長,說萬一要去Dampier港裝貨的話,船長需要從Sulu海以最短的距離通過,如果有額外的保費,承租人將會付給出租人;但是如果基于出租人的風險評估而選擇從別的地方過的話,那么該繞航及燃油消耗將由出租人承擔。

        Good Day Captain,

        Noted your last and please proceed direction spore if no advice from us afteryou reach deviation point and send eta notices to Spore Agents Johnasia.

        Please kindly revert with regards to u/w cleaning or ask your owners to revertsoonest to arrange divers.

        In case vessel has to proceed to Dampier you will proceed by shortest route via Sulu/Celebes Sea and if any additional premium for transiting such area charterers will pay owners such premium otherwise if you so wish to take longer route based on "owners" risk assessment then such deviation and consumption will befor owners account.

        Trust you are clear on your instructions.

         在航運實務中,碰到這類問題,如果感覺承租人的說法沒有道理的話,那就最好反駁一下。一是可以明確出租人的立場保留權利,二是可以給船長清晰的意圖。要不讓船長在碰到這種問題,往往會擔心如果不聽承租人的指示,會造成出租人被扣錢。于是出租人發了如下電郵,主張依據合同條款,已經并入了Conwartime2013(期租租約戰爭險條款),憑船長或出租人的合理的評估判斷,船長有權利拒絕過Sulu海;且承租人無權將此繞航費用算到出租人頭上。

        Thanks for Charterers’ last, Charterers please provide their full reports including video at Danjing for Owners’ persual.

        Charterers should fulfill their obligation as per c/p, not only to conduct propeller polishing. But on the other hand, Charterers should arrange professional diver company to avoid any damage to anti-fouling paint coating.

        In respect of shortest route, Owners are unable to accept charterers’ last allegation.

        Pursuant to this charterparty clause 65-Trading Exclusions, It’s expressly stipulated that Conwartime 2013 will be applied to this charterparty.

        Assumethe charterers well aware that clause (b) of Conwartime 2013 which provides:

         (b)The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue to or through, any port,place, area or zone, or any waterway or canal (hereinafter “Area”), where itappears that the Vessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be exposed to War Risks whether suchrisk existed at the time of entering into this Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should the Vessel be within any such place as aforesaid, which onlybecomes dangerous, or may become dangerous, after entry into it,the Vessel shall be at liberty to leave it.

        And(a) ii:

        (ii)“War Risks” shall include any actual, threatened or reported: war, act of war, civilwar or hostilities; revolution; rebellion; civil commotion; warlike operations;laying of mines; acts of piracyand/or violent robbery and/or capture/seizure(here inafter“Piracy”); acts of terrorists; acts of hostility or malicious damage; blockades(whether imposed against all vessels or imposed selectively against vessels of certain flags or ownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by any person, body, terrorist or political group, or the government of any state or territory whether recognised or not, which, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or may becomedangerous to the Vessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel.

        It’s common ground that if in the reasonable judgement of the Master and or Owners,the vessel shall be at liberty to leave it. i.e leave from Sulu/Celebes Sea.

        Thus,If the Master in his judgement not to transit high risks area ( Sulu/Celebessea), The charterers are not entitled to place those deviation cost on Owners.

        Hopea bove are acceptable by charterers.

        承租人很顯然還想在辯解,認為Sulu海還未被JWC列為禁區,過Sulu也沒有額外的保費;同時認為如果出租人引援Conwartime2013的話,那么將導致會認為新加坡/馬六甲海峽,所有印度尼西亞水域,印度,所有菲律賓和其他幾個地區都可能被船長認為是不安全的。Conwartime的應用必須確定是否存在“真正的可能性”或“嚴重的海盜威脅”,而不是僅僅在船長考慮安全問題時松散地使用。

        As per routing via Sulu / Celebes charterers maintain their last as reported incidents so far has not been classified by JWC as exclusion zones and

        though warnings have been lodged there has been no additional premium levied onSulu Transit. If owners apply Conwartime 2013, that would then

        deem Spore/Malacca Straits, All Indonesian waters,India, all Philipines and several other areas could be deemed "unsafe" by master and it will be uselessto trade this vessel anymore.

        The application of Conwartime has to satisfy as to whether there is a"real likelihood" or "serious threat of piracy" and not just used loosely as and when the master decides there is "safety Concern"

        Charterers maintain their last and if owners so decide to proceed in any othe rlonger direction it will be for owners cost and expenses.

        All charterers’ rights maintained.


        參之前的文章,對于出租人認為發生這種海盜風險的真正可能性,嚴重的海盜風險問題,出租人指出,承租人依賴的是Teare法官在The “Triton Lark”案中的判決,但在那個案中,過的是亞丁灣(GOA)。法官認為有很多護航編隊,海盜風險及嚴重威脅的真正可能性并不是很高,因此發回仲裁員重新考慮。但是Teare法官在隨后的The “Paiwan Wisdom”案中,認為前往肯尼亞的途中,因為在過海盜區內沒有護航編隊,因此有危險;出租人有權依賴Conwartime條款的保護,拒絕前往。

        In respect of routing via Sulu / Celebes, Ownerswish to emphasize that as per definition of Conwartime 2013, (ii)“War Risks”shall include any actual, threatened or reported: … acts of piracy and/orviolent robbery and/or capture/seizure(herein after “Piracy”). Owners wish to draw charterers’ keen attention to below which are self-explanatory, thereare numerous reported accident occurred during pass year. Therefore, the piracy at Sulu/Celebes sea should be fully deemed as war risks, The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue to or through this high risks area in accordance with clause (b).

        從船長是否有權拒絕過SULU海說起

        Charterers contend that the “real likelihood" or "serious threat of piracy" seem affected by Justice Teare in his judgement in The “Triton Lark” case. Owners wish to remind that in that case, Area is for GOA, And the vessel may join convoy there. But there is no any convoy in Sulu/Celebes sea.

        Owners would draw charterers’ attention to [2012] EWHC 1888 (Comm)-the “Paiwan Wisdom”case.

        In that case, Justice Teare held that by the terms of the charterparty construed in its factual context, the Owners have not accepted the risk of piracy intrading to Mombasa,and Charterers’ appeal fail.

        There are provisions in the charterparty for the payment of war risk insurance by the Charterers (see clause (d)(ii) of clause 50) but none which provides for the cost of war risk insurance for going to a named place.

        Thus the present case is not one in which the Owners have, by the terms of the charterparty construed in its factual context, accepted the risk of piracy in trading to Mombasa, Kenya.

        So far as "commercial sense" is concerned I do not accept that there is a lack of commercial sense in a construction of the charterparty which permits trading to Kenyaon Day 1 but which entitles the Owners to refuse an order to trade toKenyaon Day 2.Whilst trading to Kenya is permitted CONWARTIME 2004 enables the Owners or master to avoid danger from War Risks which may be encountered en route toKenya.

        Nor am I persuaded that Mr. Jarvis' example of a voyage from the Black Sea to Kenya which is stopped after the vessel has passed through the Gulf of Aden shows that his submission must be correct. It is possible that issues of waiver may arise in acase where instructions to proceed to a named port are accepted. The present case is not such a case. The Owners refused to accept the Charterers' instructions before any cargo was loaded and in any event their instructions did not require the vessel to proceed through the Gulf of Aden.

        For these reasons I consider, as did the majority of the arbitrators, Mr. Siberry QC and Mr. Martin-Clark, that the answer to the Preliminary Issue is No. The appeal must be dismissed.

        Thus we should follow the latest judgement from Justice Teare, i.e thePaiwan Wisdom”case to be applied in our X case.

        The Owners never accept the risks to transit Sulu/Celebes sea, the Owners are entitled to refuse to transit there due to there is no convoy basis above authorities and reported accidents.

        出租人認為X輪的爭議應該適用The “PaiwanWisdom”案的判決,因此出租人有權拒絕過Sulu海。這兩個判例,在之前的文章《關于過海盜危險區的若干思考-兼評The “Triton Lark” 案》中有分析,就不在此詳細解釋。

        接下來再來具體看看依據合同條款,X輪的船長是否有權拒絕過Sulu海。

        所先需要再次明確的是,法院的任務是確定當事人雙方選擇用來表達其協議的措辭的客觀含義。法院必須考慮所使用的措辭,并確定合理的人,即具有在合同簽訂時已合理地向當事方提供的所有背景知識的人理解的內容。法院必須將整個合同視為一個整體,并根據合同起草的性質,形式和質量,或多或少地重視更廣泛的內容,以達到其所用措辭的客觀含義。如果有兩種可能的解釋,法院有權選擇符合商業合理性的解釋。為了在語言表達和相互競爭解釋的含義之間取得平衡,法院必須考慮起草該條款的質量;同樣,法院也不能忽視這樣一種可能性,即一項條款可能是談判妥協,或者談判者無法就更準確的條款達成一致。只要法院平衡各自給出的指示,更詳細的分析是否與事實背景以及競爭對手的解釋的影響或合同中相關措辭的深入研究無關。

        如2018年高等法院的Popplewell法官在The “Ocean Neptune”案中,第8段判決書中所說的如下:

        8. There is an abundance of recent high authority on the principles applicable to the construction of commercial documents, including Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896; Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd [2009] 1 AC 1101; Re Sigma Finance Corp [2010] 1 All ER 571; Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] 1 WLR 2900; Arnold v Britton [2015] AC 1619;and Wood v Capita InsuranceServices Ltd [2017] AC 1173. The court's task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen in which to express their agreement. The court must consider the language used and ascerta in what a reasonable person, that isa person who has all the background knowledge which would reasonably have been available to the parties in the situation in which they were at the time of the contract, would have understood the parties to have meant. The court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality and qualityof drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to the objective meaning of the language used.If there are two possible constructions, the court is entitled to prefer the construction which is consistent with business common sense and to reject the other. Interpretation is a unitary exercise; in striking a balance between the indications given by the language and the implications of the competing constructions, the court must consider the quality of drafting of the clauseand it must also be alive to the possibility that one side may have agreed to something which with hindsight did not serve his interest; similarly, the court must not lose sight of the possibility that a provision may be a negotiated compromise or that the negotiators were not able to agree more precise terms.This unitary exercise involves an iterative process by which each suggested interpretation is checked against the provisions of the contract and its commercial consequences are investigated. It does not matter whether the more detailed analysis commences with the factual background and the implications of rival constructions or a close examination of the relevant language in the contract, so long as the court balances the indications given by each.

        Popplewell法官所提及的相關權威判例,在之前的合約解釋系列文章已經提及,也不在此重復說明。合約的解釋必須將合同當著一個整體來考慮,如果措辭足夠清晰明確,那么縱然結果是荒謬的,當事人也不得不接受。沒有任何解釋原則可以使法院有權重寫合同條款,如果僅僅是因為當事方所需要的因素似乎并沒有按照當事人預期的方式發展。

        首先來看前文提到的Conwartime,2013,其全文如下:

        CONWARTIME 2013 War Risks Clause for Time Chartering

         (a) For the purposeof this Clause, the words:

         (i) “Owners” shall include the shipowners, bareboat charterers,disponent owners, managers or other operators who are charged with themanagement of the Vessel, and the Master; and

         (ii)“War Risks” shall include any actual, threatened or reported:war, act of war, civil waror hostilities; revolution;rebellion; civil commotion; warlike operations; laying of mines; acts of piracy and/or violentrobbery and/or capture/seizure(hereinafter “Piracy”); acts of terrorists;acts of hostility or malicious damage; blockades (whether imposedagainst all vessels or imposed selectively against vessels of certain flags orownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by anyperson, body, terrorist or political group, or the government of any state orterritory whether recognised or not, which, in the reasonable judgement of theMaster and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or may become dangerous to theVessel, cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel.

         (b)The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed or required to continue toor through, any port, place, area or zone, or any waterway or canal(hereinafter “Area”), where it appears that the Vessel, cargo, crew orother persons on board the Vessel, in the reasonable judgement of the Masterand/or the Owners, may be exposed to War Risks whether such risk existed at thetime of entering into this Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should theVessel be within any such place as aforesaid, which only becomes dangerous, ormay become dangerous, after entry into it, the Vessel shall be at liberty toleave it.

         (c)The Vessel shall not be required to loadcontraband cargo, or to pass through any blockade as set out in Sub-clause (a),or to proceed to an Area where it may be subject to search and/or confiscationby a belligerent.

        (d)If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to War Risks, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection with WarRisks.

        (e)All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shall besettled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices or onredelivery, whichever occurs first.

        (f)If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an Area which is dangerous in the mannerdefined by the said terms, then the actual bonus or additional wagespaid shall be reimbursed to the Owners by the Charterers at the same time asthe next payment of hire is due, or upon redelivery, whichever occurs first.

        (g)The Vessel shall have liberty:

        (i) to comply with all orders, directions, recommendationsor advice as to departure, arrival, routes, sailing in convoy, ports of call,stoppages, destinations, discharge of cargo, delivery, or in any other waywhatsoever, which are given by the government of the nation under whose flagthe Vessel sails, or other government to whose laws the Owners are subject, orany other government of any state or territory whether recognised or not, bodyor group whatsoever acting with the power to compel compliance with theirorders or directions;

        (ii) to comply with the requirements of the Owners’insurers under the terms of the Vessel’s insurance(s);

        (iii)to comply with the terms of any resolution of theSecurity Council of the United Nations, the effective orders of any otherSupranational body which has the right to issue and give the same, and withnational laws aimed at enforcing the same to which the Owners are subject, andto obey the orders and directions of those who are charged with theirenforcement;

        (iv)to discharge at any alternative portany cargo or part thereof which may expose the Vessel to being held liable as acontraband carrier;

        (v)to call at any alternative port to change the crewor any part thereof or other persons on board the Vessel when there is reasonto believe that they may be subject to internment, imprisonment, detention orsimilar measures.

        (h)If in accordance with their rights under theforegoing provisions of this Clause, the Owners shall refuse to proceed to theloading or discharging ports, or any one or more of them, they shall immediatelyinform the Charterers. No cargo shall be discharged at any alternative portwithout first giving the Charterers notice of the Owners’ intention to do soand requesting them to nominate a safe port for such discharge. Failing suchnomination by the Charterers within 48 hours of the receipt of such notice andrequest, the Owners may discharge the cargo at any safe port of their ownchoice. All costs,risk and expenses for the alternative discharge shall be forthe Charterers’ account.

        (i)The Charterers shall indemnify the Owners forclaims arising out of the Vessel proceeding in accordance with any of theprovisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) which are made under any bills of lading,waybills or other documents evidencing contracts of carriage.

        When acting inaccordance with any of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) of this Clauseanything is done or not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation, but shallbe considered as due fulfilment of this Charter Party.

        在該條款的戰爭風險中,明確說明:“戰爭風險”應包括任何實際的、收到威脅的或報道的:戰爭、戰爭行動、內戰或敵對行動、革命、叛亂、內亂、作戰行動、布雷、海盜行為以及/或暴力搶劫和/或捕獲(以下簡稱“海盜”)、恐怖行動、敵意行為或惡意破壞、任何人員、實體、恐怖或政治集團或任何無論注冊與否的國家或領地政府的封鎖(無論針對所有船舶或選擇性針對特定船旗或出租人的船,或針對特定貨物或船員或其他),船長和/或出租人基于合理判斷認為可能或可能變的對船舶、貨物、船員或其他在船人員產生的威脅。該條款關于海盜的說法是:海盜行為以及/或暴力搶劫和/或捕獲(以下簡稱“海盜”),這里and/or是并列的關系,但并沒有提及需發生海盜行為的真正的可能性或劫持的嚴重性問題,因此Sulu海的海盜顯然可以視為該條款下的戰爭風險。

        接著看(b)款,船舶無義務進入或被要求繼續駛向或經由任何由船長和/或出租人的合理判斷可能有戰爭威脅的港口、地點、地區或區域或航道或運河(以下簡稱“區域”),無論該風險是否在租約生效時已存在或生效后出現。如果船舶駛入前文所述僅變得危險或可能便危險的地點,進入后船舶可自由駛離。結合戰爭風險中的,任何實際的、收到威脅的或報道的,那么Sulu海的海盜風險顯然是有報道的,因此船舶可憑借(b)款的保護,無義務進入或被要求繼續駛往該區域。即船長有權利拒絕過Sulu海。

        承租人認為拒絕過Sulu海導致了有饒航,相關的費用得由出租人承擔。但是參該條款的最后部分,“When acting in accordance with any of the provisions of Sub-clauses (b) to (h) of this Clause anything is done or not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation,but shall be considered as due fulfilment of this Charter Party. ”

        按照該條款分條款(b)到(h)任何條文為或不為,不視為繞航而應視為本租約的適當履行。

        因此承租人所謂的繞航并不成立,應視為本租約的適當履行。

        接下來看看X輪合同中的第66條:

        Clause66

        Thefollowing BIMCO clauses are deemed to be incorporated in the Charterparty inthe latest version current at the date of this Charter Party :

        BIMCONew Oil Pollution Charter Party Clause;

        BIMCOStandard ISM Clause for Voyage and Time Charter Parties;

        BIMCOISPS / MTSA Clause for Time Charter Parties 2005;

        BIMCOBunker Fuel SulphurContent Clause for Time Charter Parties 2005;

        BIMCOUSCensusBureau Mandatory Automated Export System (AES) Clause for Time Charter Parties;

        BIMCONorth American Advance Cargo Notification Clause for Time Charter Parties;BIMCOUSCustoms-Trade Partnership Agent Terrorism (C-TPAT) Clause;

        BIMCOStowaways Clause for Time Charter Parties 2009;

        BIMCO War Risks Clause for TimeChartering (CONWARTIME 2013)

        BIMCO Piracy Clause;

        BIMCORadioactivity Risk Clause for Time Charter Parties.

        BIMCOInfectious or Contagious Diseases Clause for Time Charter Parties

        BIMCONEW JASON Clause

        BIMCOBoth-to-Blame Collision Clause

        BIMCOParamount Clause General

        BIMCOP. & I. Bunker Deviation Clause, 1948

        BIMCOBunker Non-Lien Clause for Time Charter Parties

        TheUS/Canadian Clause Paramount as applicable, orthe Hague Rule as enacted in countries other than theUSAorCanadaas applicable to beincorporated in all Bills of Lading.

        這里列明一系列BIMCO條款并入到該租約,其中還提到了BIMCO的海盜條款。

        關于BIMCO的海盜條款,早先有2009年版本。但是在2012年The “Triton Lark”中,Teare法官對于過GOA發生的海盜劫持,提出了a real likelihood的問題,即發生海盜真正的可能性問題。該案涉及Conwartime的解釋問題。但在2012年The “Saldanha”案中,高等法院的Gross法官判海盜劫持期間承租人無權停租。因此為了消除潛在的不確定問題,BIMCO對此作了修改,隨后有了2013年的版本。鑒于合同中沒有列明BIMCO海盜條款,是哪一種版本,因此本文以2013年的版本來分析。

        BIMCO Piracy Clause for Time Charter Parties 2013

        (a) The Vessel shall not be obliged to proceed orrequired to continue to or through, any port, place, area or zone, or anywaterway or canal (hereinafter "Area") which, in the reasonablejudgement of the Master and/or the Owners, is dangerous to the Vessel, cargo,crew or other persons on board the Vessel due to any actual, threatened orreported acts of piracy and/or violent robbery and/or capture/seizure (hereinafter"Piracy"), whether such risk existed at the time of entering intothis Charter Party or occurred thereafter. Should the Vessel be within any suchplace as aforesaid which only becomes dangerous, or may become dangerous, afterentry into it, the Vessel shall be at liberty to leave it.

        (b) If in accordance with sub-clause (a) the Owners decidethat the Vessel shall not proceed or continue to or through the Area they mustimmediately inform the Charterers. The Charterers shall be obliged to issuealternative voyage orders and shall indemnify the Owners for any claims fromholders of the Bills of Lading or third parties caused by waiting for suchorders and/or the performance of an alternative voyage. Any time lost as aresult of complying with such orders shall not be considered off-hire.

        (c) If the Owners consent or if the Vessel proceeds toor through an Area exposed to the risk of Piracy the Owners shall have theliberty:

        (i) to take reasonable preventative measures toprotect the Vessel, crew and cargo including but not limited to re-routeingwithin the Area, proceeding in convoy, using escorts, avoiding day or nightnavigation, adjusting speed or course, or engaging security personnel and/ordeploying equipment on or about the Vessel (includingembarkation/disembarkation).

        (ii) to comply with the requirements of the Owners'insurers under the terms of the Vessel's insurance(s);

        (iii) to comply with all orders, directions,recommendations or advice given by the Government of the Nation under whoseflag the Vessel sails, or other Government to whose laws the Owners aresubject, or any other Government, body or group (including militaryauthorities) whatsoever acting with the power to compel compliance with theirorders or directions; and

        (iv) to comply with the terms of any resolution of theSecurity Council of the United Nations, the effective orders of any otherSupranational body which has the right to issue and give the same, and withnational laws aimed at enforcing the same to which the Owners are subject, andto obey the orders and directions of those who are charged with theirenforcement; and the Charterers shall indemnify the Owners for any claims fromholders of Bills of Lading or third parties caused by the Vessel proceeding asaforesaid, save to the extent that such claims are covered by additionalinsurance as provided in sub-clause (d)(iii).

        (d) Costs

        (i) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Area wheredue to risk of Piracy additional costs will be incurred including but notlimited to additional personnel and preventative measures to avoid Piracy, suchreasonable costs shall be for the Charterers' account. Any time lost waitingfor convoys, following recommended routeing, timing, or reducing speed ortaking measures to minimise risk, shall be for the Charterers' account and theVessel shall

        remain on hire;

        (ii) If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an area which is dangerous in the manner defined by the saidterms, then the actual bonus or additional wages paid shall be reimbursed tothe Owners by the Charterers;

        (iii) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to the risk of Piracy, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection withPiracy risks which may include but not be limited to War Loss of Hire and/ormaritime K&R.

        (iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shallbe settled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices oron redelivery, whichever occurs first.

        (e) If the Vessel is attacked by pirates any time lostshall be for the account of the Charterers and the Vessel shall remain on hire.

        (f) If the Vessel is seized by pirates the Owners shallkeep the Charterers closely informed of the efforts made to have the Vesselreleased. The Vessel shall remain on hire throughout the seizure and theCharterers' obligations shall remain unaffected, except that hire paymentsshall cease as of the ninety-first (91st) day after the seizure until release.The Charterers shall pay hire, or if the Vessel has been redelivered, theequivalent of Charter Party hire, for any time lost in making good any damageand deterioration resulting from the seizure. The Charterers shall not beliable for late redelivery under this Charter Party resulting from the seizure ofthe Vessel.

        (g) If in compliance with this Clause anything is doneor not done, such shall not be deemed a deviation, but shall be considered asdue fulfilment of this Charter Party. In the event of a conflict between theprovisions of this Clause and any implied or express provision of the CharterParty, this Clause shall prevail.

        該海盜條款(a)款和Conwartime的(b)款差不多。船舶無義務進入或繼續進入或通過,在船長和/或出租人合理判斷的情況下,對于船舶、貨物、船員或其他在船人員有實際或可能危險,或有報告的海盜活動和/或暴力搶奪和/或俘獲/捕獲(以下簡稱“海盜”)的任何港口、地點、區域或地區或任何航道或海峽(以下簡稱 “區域”),無論此風險是否在訂立本租約期間存在或是租約訂立以后。當船舶進入前述地點變為危險或可能危險、或進入后危險,船舶可自由離開。

        因此X輪的船長依據此款可以選擇拒絕過Sulu海。接著看(b)款,說的是:

        根據分條款(a)出租人決定船舶不進入或不繼續經過該區域,應立即通知承租人。承租人有義務發出替代航程的指令,并對出租人由于提單持有人或第三方對于等待此指令和/或進行替代航程導致的索賠負責。為遵循此指令導致的時間損失不得視為停租。

        該款只要求不進入或不繼續經過的時候應通知承租人,但在等待承租人指示所造成的時間損失不得停租。

        (e)到(g)款,接著作出規定:如果船舶被海盜襲擊,時間損失由承租人承擔,船舶不得停租。如果船舶被海盜捕獲,出租人應及時通知承租人其解救船舶的努力。船舶在被捕獲期間不得停租,承租人義務不影響,除租金支付自被捕獲后第91天停止直至被釋放。承租人應支付租金、被捕獲導致的修理和修復的時間損失。

        如果按本條款為或不為,不視為繞航,應被視為對本租約的適當履行。本租約條款與租約中其他默示或明示條文沖突時,本條款優先適用。

        結合這些條款,可以看出,Conwartime及Piracy clause對X輪的出租人起到了很好的保護作用。船長和或船東,以其合理性判斷可以選擇拒絕過Sulu海海盜區域,而按這些條款,為或不為,均不視為繞航,而應被視為對本租約的適當履行。同時,如果萬一被海盜劫持,承租人也不得停租。

        2013年版本的海盜條款,(d)款中對過海盜區域的費用作了規定。

        (i) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Area wheredue to risk of Piracy additional costs will be incurred including but notlimited to additional personnel and preventative measures to avoid Piracy, suchreasonable costs shall be for the Charterers' account. Any time lost waitingfor convoys, following recommended routeing, timing, or reducing speed ortaking measures to minimise risk, shall be for the Charterers' account and theVessel shall

        remain on hire;

        (ii) If the Owners become liable under the terms ofemployment to pay to the crew any bonus or additional wages in respect ofsailing into an area which is dangerous in the manner defined by the saidterms, then the actual bonus or additional wages paid shall be reimbursed tothe Owners by the Charterers;

        (iii) If the Vessel proceeds to or through an Areaexposed to the risk of Piracy, the Charterers shall reimburse to the Owners anyadditional premiums required by the Owners' insurers and the costs of anyadditional insurances that the Owners reasonably require in connection withPiracy risks which may include but not be limited to War Loss of Hire and/ormaritime K&R.

        (iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shallbe settled within fifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices oron redelivery, whichever occurs first.

        如果船舶駛入或經由海盜風險區,額外費用包括但不僅限于防海盜個人和預防措施,這些合理的費用應由承租人承擔。任何等待護衛、遵照建議航線、時間或減速或采取減小風險的措施的時間損失,由租家負責,船舶不得停租。如果出租人根據雇傭合同駛入根據所述條款被定義為危險區域的地區,應支付船員獎金或額外工資,承租人應支付出租人實際的獎金或額外的工資。如果船舶駛入或經由海盜危險區域,承租人應支付出租人其保險人額外的保費以及關于海盜額外保費的合理費用,包括但不僅限于租金戰爭損失和/或海上綁架和贖金險。由于分條款(d)產生的一切費用應在收到船東支持性發票15天內或還船時支付,取其先到者。

        最后來說說過海盜區所涉及的保費方面的問題。2013年版本的海盜條款的措辭相對2009年版本的海盜條款中關于費用承擔部分如下,清晰很多。

        (iii) If the underwriters of the Owners’ insurances require additionalpremiums or additional insurance cover is necessary because the Vessel proceeds to or throughan Area exposed to risk of Piracy, then such additional insurance costs shallbe reimbursed by the Charterers to the Owners;

        (iv) All payments arising under Sub-clause (d) shall be settled withinfifteen (15) days of receipt of Owners’ supported invoices or on redelivery,whichever occurs first.


        在2016年的The“Bulk Indonesia”案中,涉及的是過GOA的保費問題,在合同中并入了2009年版本的BIMCO海盜條款。而且在合同中還作了如下額外規定:

        "G.O.A/SUEZ ALLOWED BUT MAXIMUM TWO TRANSIT DURINGTHE CURRENCY OF CP

        Cost of transit Goa toread

        AS A REFERENCE ONLY PROVISIONAL PIRACY COSTS (INCLUDINGOR NOT AND NOT LIMITED TO) AS FOLLOWS

        Extra insurance war risk Usd.15,000 abt K&RUsd.30,000.00 Loss of Hire Usd.5,000.00 Anti piracy material Usd.15,000.00Armed Guards abt Usd.35,000.00 (depends embarkation/disembarkation/duration)

        Crew bonus abt Usd 5,000

        Total Abt. 105,000.00 usd. Without Guarantee"

        在該案中的二船東,支付給了原船東還是綁架及贖金險(kidnap and ransom insurance),兩次過GOA總共60,000美金。然后要求承租人依據BIMCO的海盜條款及合同額外的規定支付此費用,承租人要求二船東提供付款憑證。二船東向承租人解釋說,出于保密的原因,原船東無法向他們提供直接證據,證明向保險人支付了綁架及贖金險。二船東主張,他們有權憑借原船東提供的debit note,要求承租人支付此費用。但承租人否認他們有有責任支付任何款項,并在他們反訴中向二船東索賠已支付了12,000美元的款項。

        仲裁員作出了對承租人有利的裁決。仲裁員認為,“海盜條款”要求出租人必須證明每次穿過GOA向保險商支付了多少保費。二船東所依靠的借方票據僅僅是他們向原船東人支付的證據,并沒有提供證據表明支付給保險人的款項。最終裁定由于缺乏證據,二船東索賠不成立。二船東不服裁決上訴。

        高等法院的Leggatt法官認為,對于該條款的唯一合理解釋是,在這種情況下,正如第一種情況一樣,出租人有權要求償還的額外保險費用是購買額外保險保障的費用。這些費用必然是由提供保險的承保人收取并支付的款項。因此,“額外保險費用”一詞實際上只涉及實際購買的保險保險費,無論是在現有保險下還是在新安排的保險下。這個措辭不能合理地解釋為二船東向原船東支付的費用,這與原船東為獲得海盜風險保險而承擔的費用不相符。我認為與戰爭風險條款的比較并不能改變這一結論,或者對二船東提出的條款可能更好或不同措辭的說法有所幫助。但無論如何,差異可以用以下事實來解釋:戰爭風險條款僅涉及戰爭險已經實施的情況。它沒有海盜條款中的第二條規定,額外的保險是必須的。

        In my view, the only reasonable interpretation of the clause is that in this situation, just as in the first situation, the additional insurance costs for which the owners are entitled to claim reimbursement are the costs of purchasing the additional insurance cover. Such costs will necessarily be the sums charged by and payable to the underwriters who provide the insurance. It follows that the phrase"additional insurance costs" must indeed refer only to premiums payable for insurance cover actually purchased, whether under an existing insurance or under newly arranged insurance. The phrase cannot reasonably beinterpreted as referring to costs payable by disponent owners to head ownerswhich do not correspond to costs incurred by the head owners to obtaininsurance cover for piracy risks. I do not consider that comparison withthe War Risks Clause detracts from that conclusion or assists thedisponent owners' arguments that a clause could have been better ordifferently worded are seldom persuasive, but in any event the difference canbe explained by the fact that the War Risks Clause is only dealing with asituation where war risks insurance has already been effected. It does not havethe second limb which the Piracy Clause has which provides for reimbursement where additional insurance cover isnecessary.

        最終,Leggatt法官支持了仲裁員的裁決,二船東的上訴被駁回。

        因此,為規避風險,涉及到過海盜的相關費用問題,如果不方便提供發票的話,對所發生的費用,應該以更清晰明確的措辭來規定,比如本案中的,可以修改為:

        Extra insurance war risk Usd.15,000 abt K&RUsd.30,000.00 Loss of Hire Usd.5,000.00 Anti piracy material Usd.15,000.00Armed Guards abt Usd.35,000.00 (depends embarkation/disembarkation/duration)

        Crew bonus abt Usd 5,000

        Total 105,000.00 usd should be paid by the charterers as lumpsum and without supporting vouchers.

        明確規定承租人需支付105,000美金作為包干費用,而且無需提供發票。

        合約解釋,無外乎所簽訂的合同;因此依份好的租約顯得異常重要,鑒于海盜風險的加大,合同中并入并入Conwartime條款或BIMCO Piracy Clause有重要的意義。)

        作者:Alex 來源:航運佬

        免責聲明:本文僅代表作者個人觀點,與船管網無關。其原創性以及文中陳述文字和內容的真實性、完整性等未經本站證實,船管網不作任何保證或承諾,請讀者僅作參考,并請自行核實相關內容。
        關于版權:本站部分文章來源于網絡,如有侵權,請聯系本站,我們將盡快處理。
        關于轉載:本站文章可任意轉載,但請注明作者和出處,并務必添加本站的文字鏈接。
        預留廣告位600x60
        【免費使用】點擊查看詳情
        相關評論
        發表我的評論
        • 來源:
        • 內容:
        • 驗證碼:
      1. 船管網 ( Shipmg.com ) © 2021 版權所有 All Rights Reserved.
      2. 聯系:sea#shipmg.com (發郵件時請將"#"換成"@") 微信公眾號:船舶管理信息平臺(shipmg)
      3. 執行時間:31 毫秒   360網站安全認證
      4. 春色校园亚洲综合小说-亚洲欧美中文日韩在线视频一-亚洲人成AV免费网站网址-亚洲欧美自拍另类制服图区