關(guān)于NOR及LAYTIME的若干問(wèn)題-云關(guān)通

【摘要】本文針對(duì)實(shí)踐中發(fā)生的NOR爭(zhēng)議事件，通過(guò)對(duì)一些仲裁判例的對(duì)比分析，來(lái)簡(jiǎn)要分析一下關(guān)于NOR及Laytime計(jì)算的一些注意事項(xiàng)，以便在實(shí)務(wù)中參考，避免引起不必要的爭(zhēng)議糾紛及造成無(wú)謂的損失。

在航運(yùn)實(shí)務(wù)中，NOR及Laytime計(jì)算爭(zhēng)議數(shù)不勝數(shù)，這些爭(zhēng)議和租約中的合同條款有莫大關(guān)聯(lián)；因此一份好的沒(méi)有漏洞的租約合同在實(shí)務(wù)中就顯得非常重要。

現(xiàn)以某H輪為例，來(lái)談一談NOR有效性問(wèn)題及一些基本的laytime常識(shí)。其中關(guān)于租家違約安排該輪在滿載，未安排減載而直接到鲅魚圈港缷貨，以及違反租約安全港口的保證條款及相關(guān)確認(rèn)承擔(dān)掛靠鲅魚圈港所有的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、費(fèi)用本文暫且不提，單就租家認(rèn)為在遼東灣淺灘遞交的NOR無(wú)效的情況做進(jìn)詳細(xì)的分析。
  
案件基本情況如下：
   
            H輪滿載裝292,605噸鐵礦，吃水21.38米；租約規(guī)定，如果滿載，租家得先安排船舶到大連港先減載才能去鲅魚圈。在租家確認(rèn)承擔(dān)所有相關(guān)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)和費(fèi)用后，并簽訂《H輪直靠鲅魚圈》協(xié)議，于是船東同意租家要求，船舶直接前往鲅魚圈港卸貨。在抵達(dá)遼東灣淺灘的時(shí)候，遭遇7-8級(jí)大風(fēng)，鑒于可能造成擱淺，船底破損等風(fēng)險(xiǎn)，船長(zhǎng)按照《H輪直靠鲅魚圈》協(xié)議，于12月9日0320在遼東灣淺灘拋錨等候天氣好轉(zhuǎn)，并同時(shí)遞交第一個(gè)NOR。此時(shí)，鲅魚圈港的泊位一直有船作業(yè)，也未有合適的高潮，加上前方有軍事演習(xí)，直到14日晚間2047才起錨前往鲅魚圈，15日0410抵達(dá)鲅魚圈錨地并拋錨，同時(shí)遞交第二個(gè)NOR。泊位依舊有船在作業(yè)，該輪最后趁高潮18日0130起錨，0220引水上船，于0708靠泊鲅魚圈港開始卸貨， 21日0100卸完。

租家認(rèn)為在遼東灣淺灘，船還未到鲅魚圈港界，不是到達(dá)船，所以9日0320遞交的第一個(gè)NOR無(wú)效；認(rèn)為第二個(gè)NOR才有效。船東主張第一個(gè)NOR有效，可以開始起算Laytime?？鄢龔倪|東灣淺灘到鲅魚圈錨地的移泊時(shí)間，爭(zhēng)議時(shí)間約5.73天，金額約17萬(wàn)美金。

現(xiàn)在來(lái)分析12月9日0320在遼東灣淺灘遞交的NOR到底是不是有效的NOR。

合同第11條關(guān)于卸港NOR條款規(guī)定如下：

Notice of readiness should be tendered any time any day Sunday Holiday included, provided the vessel is ready for discharging.
Laytime shall commence 24 hours after tendering the Notice of Readiness, Sunday and holiday included, unless sooner commenced, in such case time used will be counted as laytime.

法官Thomas 在The Agamemnon 案中 提到：
A notice of readiness which is effective to start Laytime running can only be given when the conditions set out in the charterparty for its giving have been met. A notice that does not meet those conditions is not a valid notice.

針對(duì)本案，有效NOR遞交的條件只有一個(gè)，就是ready for discharging。

一、船舶在遼東灣淺灘拋錨后遞交NOR，此時(shí)船舶是否是算ready?

關(guān)于此ready，參《Voyage Charters》-Chapter 15-Laytime
15.44 The vessel must not only be physically ready to load or discharge, as required, when the notice of readiness is given, but also legally ready.
可分為physically ready 和legally ready 兩種情況。
另參《Shipping Law》-Chapter 11—Laytime and Demurrage
The notice must be a notice of actual, not anticipated, readiness.
NOR will be effective only if the vessel, is, in fact, ready to load and discharge at the time it is given.
也就是船舶必須在遞交NOR的時(shí)候已經(jīng)在事實(shí)上ready，而不能是預(yù)期ready。

先來(lái)看看幾個(gè)倫敦仲裁判例。

1、London Arbitration 14/05 (2005) 669 LMLN 3 案

在該案中，船舶以帶有附加條款的Gencon格式，執(zhí)行一個(gè)從Aqaba到Paradip裝載60,000噸磷酸鹽航次。船于7月9日0830抵達(dá)Paradip，由于泊位被占，船長(zhǎng)在錨地遞交NOR。7月15日港長(zhǎng)及引水上船，發(fā)現(xiàn)船上磁羅經(jīng)不工作，主機(jī)也未能達(dá)到需要的轉(zhuǎn)數(shù)，沒(méi)有大比例尺港圖，船舶超吃水及造成拱頭，車舵反應(yīng)不靈敏，于是拒絕安排船舶靠泊，隨后離船。7月25日又重新登船檢驗(yàn)，26日同意船舶可以靠泊；最終30日0842靠泊，1530開始卸貨，8月8日0900卸完。
船東稱7月9日2030開始起算Laytime，并于7月13日1750進(jìn)入滯期；租家抗辯說(shuō)7月9日遞交的NOR無(wú)效，從7月30日1530開始卸貨才開始起算laytime。
鑒于港長(zhǎng)及引水開具的那5條缺陷，船員并沒(méi)有采取實(shí)質(zhì)的糾正措施，但這都不妨礙正?？坎矗ü僬J(rèn)為租家無(wú)法舉證磁羅經(jīng)在遞交NOR的時(shí)候處于不能工作的狀態(tài)，磁羅經(jīng)損壞的偶發(fā)事件不足以令laytime停止計(jì)算。

For that reason, and because the other alleged deficiencies did not in the event prove to be impediments to berthing, the NOR tendered on 9 July was valid and effective to trigger the commencement of laytime.
No evidence had been adduced by the charterers that the problem with the gyro compass was the result of any breach of charter or fault by the owners. A fortuitous breakdown of the gyro compass was not sufficient to stop time counting. In order to stop time counting there had to be either a breach or fault on the part of the owners. The law recognised that breakdowns might occur without breach or fault and did not penalise shipowners in such instances. Without evidence of either (and the burden of proof lay on the charterers in that respect), time continued to count without interruption.

法官同時(shí)認(rèn)為，如果租家對(duì)NOR遞交條件有要求，須在合同里清晰列明。
That was not sufficient to contract out the usual requirements for the tender of a valid NOR. Clearer language would be required, referring specifically to the readiness of the vessel to load.

在該案中，港長(zhǎng)及引水開具的5條缺陷，似乎都能認(rèn)為船舶不是ready，但這些缺陷并沒(méi)有影響到最終靠泊，租家也無(wú)法舉證，因此在遞交NOR的時(shí)候，被認(rèn)為已經(jīng)是ready了，不影響NOR的有效性。
但在裝貨前，比如貨艙沒(méi)備好，或者需要熏艙都可能會(huì)被認(rèn)為尚未ready，如The Trest Flores 案，船舶在遞交NOR之后還需要進(jìn)行熏艙，法官認(rèn)為船舶還沒(méi)ready, NOR無(wú)效。
H輪在隨后起錨，重新拋錨，起錨，靠泊，開關(guān)艙作業(yè)、離泊等等都非常順利，未出現(xiàn)任何延誤及異常情況，因此租家不能事后跑來(lái)說(shuō)遞交NOR的時(shí)候船舶還未physically ready。

二、0320這個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)不在工作時(shí)間，是否影響NOR有效性？

在Galaxy Energy International Limited v Novorossiysk Shipping Company (The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 案中，租家要求NOR需在0600-1700之間遞交，但是船長(zhǎng)不是在這區(qū)間遞交的NOR，法官認(rèn)為租家代理在第二天的這個(gè)區(qū)間就能收到，因此NOR到那時(shí)候就變?yōu)橛行У腘OR，可以開始laytime計(jì)算。
參《Shipping Law》：
In Galaxy Energy International Limited v Novorossiysk Shipping Company (The Petr Schmidt) [1998] 2 Lloyds Rep 1 the charter required that NOR be tendered within 0600 to 1700 hours local time. The Court of Appeal upheld owners' contention that a notice tendered out of hours took effect when those hours began.

另參《Voyage Charter》-Chapter 15-Laytime
15.32 Under the general law, and unless the charter otherwise provides, notice may be given at any time, and there is no requirement that it be given during ordinary office hours. See the general discussion by Rix L.K in Tidebrook Maritime Corp V Vitol ( The Front Commander) [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep.251

也就是說(shuō)如果租約沒(méi)有規(guī)定，那么NOR就可以在任何時(shí)間遞交。
因此在時(shí)間點(diǎn)上，沒(méi)有任何問(wèn)題，在0320遞交不影響NOR有效性。

那么問(wèn)題就來(lái)到租家辯稱的，說(shuō)船還未到鲅魚圈港界內(nèi)，不是到達(dá)船，NOR無(wú)效。

三、什么樣的情況下才可以算是到達(dá)船 arrived ship?

業(yè)界著名的“Reid Test”，源于法官Reid在The“Johanna Oldendorff ”案中所確立的；由于其確立的“Reid Test”至今未被推翻，因此關(guān)于“Arrived Ship”的權(quán)威定義可見(jiàn)于：
The Johanna Oldendorff [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285 at page 291, and in particular the following passage at col 2:
“On the whole matter I think that it ought to be made clear that the essential factor is that before a ship can be treated as an arrived ship she must be within the port and at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer and that her geographical position is of secondary importance. But for practical purposes it is so much easier to establish that, if the ship is at a usual waiting place within the port, it can generally be presumed that she is there fully at the charterer's disposal.
I would therefore state what I would hope to be the true legal position in this way. Before a ship can said to have arrived at a port she must, if she cannot proceed immediately to a berth, have reached a position within the port where she is at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer. If she is at a place where waiting ships usually lie, she will be in such a position unless in some extraordinary circumstances proof of which would lie in the charterer.
If the ship is waiting at some other place in the port then it will be for the owner to prove that she is as fully at the disposition of the charterer as she would have been if in the vicinity of the berth for loading or discharge. ”

簡(jiǎn)單點(diǎn)說(shuō)就是在港口租約的情形下，如租約未作特別約定，船舶要到港口范圍內(nèi)，也就是“within the port”，且處于承租人的有效控制下，也就是“at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer” 才可被視為到達(dá)了約定地點(diǎn)，否則就不是已到達(dá)船舶，也就是不是一個(gè)“Arrived Ship ”。需說(shuō)明的是，在該案中強(qiáng)調(diào)船舶“要達(dá)到港口范圍內(nèi)”，即使是港口或者港口當(dāng)局讓船舶在港口范圍外等待，該船舶仍然未到達(dá)約定地點(diǎn)。
    關(guān)于“within the port”和 “at the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer”的解釋如下：

? Within the port
如租約未作特別約定，船舶必需到達(dá)港口范圍內(nèi)才可能被視為已到達(dá)船舶。因此，如果船舶被命令在港口范圍外待泊，船舶就不是已到達(dá)船舶（除非租約有特別約定）。

? At the immediate and effective disposition of the charterer
船舶必需處于承租人的立即、有效控制之下。所謂處于承租人的立即、有效控制之下，是指如果出現(xiàn)可以靠泊的泊位時(shí)，其可馬上到達(dá)泊位開始卸貨；或者需要在錨地開始減載的時(shí)候，其可以馬上開始減載卸貨。
那么，如何判斷是否處于承租人的立即、有效控制之下？按照上述引用的Lord Reid的判決原文，如果船舶的待泊地點(diǎn)是在通常的待泊地點(diǎn)，則會(huì)初步認(rèn)為其處于承租人的立即、有效控制之下，如承租人不同意則其負(fù)有舉證義務(wù)。如果船舶待泊地點(diǎn)不是在通常的待泊地點(diǎn)，則船東負(fù)有舉證義務(wù)證明其處于承租人的立即、有效控制之下。

船舶還未按租約約定到達(dá)指定位置，還不是到達(dá)船，導(dǎo)致NOR無(wú)效的案例有很多，抽取如以下：

四、遼東灣淺灘那是否是習(xí)慣性等泊位置及是否可以遞交NOR？

從地理位置說(shuō)，遼東灣滿載VLCC推薦航線，是H輪滿載進(jìn)入鲅魚圈的唯一通道，需要候潮、及在天氣良好的情況下才能安全通過(guò)。H輪到達(dá)時(shí)適逢低潮和大風(fēng)浪，在抵達(dá)遼東灣滿載VLCC推薦航線南部后，，像H輪這種30萬(wàn)噸級(jí)別的船只能在淺灘前等泊，沒(méi)有別的地方可以去，因?yàn)閯e的地方水深還更淺，因此可以認(rèn)為是這種超大型船舶習(xí)慣性等泊位置。

在The Johanna Oldendorff案中，法官Diplock把程租航次分為了4個(gè)連續(xù)的階段，如下：
(1) The loading or approach voyage, viz. the voyage of the chartered vessel from wherever she is at the date of the charterparty to the place specified in it as the place of loading.
(2) The loading operation, viz. the delivery of the cargo to the vessel at the place of loading and its stowage on board.
(3) The carrying voyage, viz. the voyage of the vessel to the place specified in the charterparty as the place of delivery.
(4) The discharging operation, viz. the delivery of the cargo from the vessel at the place specified in the charterparty as the place of discharge and its receipt there by the charterer or other consignee.

簡(jiǎn)單點(diǎn)就是第一為預(yù)備航次階段，第二為裝貨作業(yè)階段，第三位載貨航次階段，第四為卸貨作業(yè)階段。這4個(gè)階段是連續(xù)的，沒(méi)有間隙及沒(méi)有重復(fù)的，只有在一個(gè)階段結(jié)束了才可以開始下一個(gè)階段。例如，船必須結(jié)束第一階段后或第三階段后才可以遞交NOR，在航期間不可以遞交NOR。
及《Laytime and Demurrage》Chapter 1,對(duì)此的補(bǔ)充解釋說(shuō)明：
Lord Diplock’s speech is clear authority that under English law the stages are consecutive and each must be completed before the next can begin. As will be seen, that means, for instance, that a vessel must reach its specified destination before a notice of readiness can be presented and notice cannot therefore be given whilst underway. There cannot be any gap between the stages, not is there any overlap.

那么船舶是否可以算是已經(jīng)結(jié)束了carrying voyage了呢？因?yàn)闊o(wú)別的航線可以選擇，船舶已經(jīng)無(wú)論如何都無(wú)法再更靠近鲅魚圈(as close as possible)，同時(shí)也已經(jīng)拋完錨（finished voyage）,因此可以認(rèn)為已經(jīng)結(jié)束carrying voyage了。那么在結(jié)束了一個(gè)階段后，就可以遞交有效的NOR開始laytime計(jì)算，參如下：
The Johanna Oldendorff [1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep 285 and The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd's Rep 675) that the carrying voyage did not come to an end until the vessel had finished her voyage and reached a point as close as possible to where cargo operations were to be carried out as possible.

這4個(gè)階段，其中預(yù)備航次和載貨航次由船東自己負(fù)責(zé)，裝貨和卸貨階段主要由租家負(fù)責(zé)；如果船東方面如果有過(guò)失，造成耽誤，則租家可以中斷l(xiāng)aytime計(jì)算。但在裝貨階段，租家有絕對(duì)的義務(wù)去提供貨物，如果因?yàn)闆](méi)有貨導(dǎo)致耽誤，則船東可以以detention為由找租家索賠損失。
如Postlethwaite v. Freeland案中，Selborne勛爵說(shuō)的如下：
An absolute and unconditional engagement, for the non-performance of which he is answerable, whatever may be the nature of the impediments which prevent him from performing it and which cause the ship to be detained in his service beyond the time stipulated.

絕對(duì)和無(wú)條件的保證。不論使他不能履行這項(xiàng)保證、導(dǎo)致船舶超出了規(guī)定的時(shí)間而產(chǎn)生延誤的阻礙事項(xiàng)的性質(zhì)如何，他都應(yīng)為此承擔(dān)責(zé)任。

此外，文頭提過(guò)有軍事演習(xí)，租家可能抗辯說(shuō)軍事演習(xí)屬于不可抗力，但軍事演習(xí)區(qū)域僅僅覆蓋了部分H輪滿載進(jìn)入鲅魚圈的唯一通道，即覆蓋了部分遼東灣滿載VLCC推薦航線。如果租家按租約要求，先到大連減載，H輪依然可以繞開軍事演習(xí)區(qū)域，從以外的水域通過(guò)、并可順利抵達(dá)鲅魚圈錨地。這是另外一個(gè)話題，不在本文討論。

五、習(xí)慣性等泊位置是否必須在港界內(nèi)？是否可以遞交有效的NOR?

由于港口地理位置等原因，比如長(zhǎng)江內(nèi)的港口，或者是密西西比河里的港口，這些習(xí)慣性等泊位置都不在港界內(nèi)。

9、London Arbitration 11/95 (1995) 409 LMLN 3

在該案中，合同為帶有附加條款的Euromed 的格式。租家安排到阿根廷Rosario裝貨，船于5月30日1440抵達(dá)Zona Comun并遞交NOR，
… Time to count from the first working period on the next business day following vessel’s customs clearance and receipt at the office of charterers’ agents of written notice of readiness accompanied by pass of any national and/or other regulatory bodies as may be required, and/or independent surveyors as selected by charterers, [attesting to the fact that the vessel is clean and in every respect ready in all compartments

船東稱按合同6月3日0600開始起算Laytime，租家辯稱船不是到達(dá)船，NOR無(wú)效。
法官認(rèn)為雖然總的原則上要求船必須到達(dá)港界內(nèi)才能算是到達(dá)船，但是船抵達(dá)那些習(xí)慣等泊位置，雖然在港界外也應(yīng)該被認(rèn)為是到達(dá)船，可以遞交有效的NOR，駁回租家第一個(gè)抗辯。
Held , that so far as the charterers’ first contention was concerned, the fact that Zona Comun was outside the Rosario port limits was clear on the evidence. What was really in contention was the effect that that factor might have upon the “arrived ship” doctrine (ie the Johanna Oldendorff test). Although the general rule was that, for a vessel to be treated as having arrived at her destination she had to be within the port limits, that had to be understood as being subject to an exception where the Port Authorities had designated another area within their administration where vessels had to wait before proceeding to a berth. Such interpretation of the law as it stood on that point had been widely accepted in commercial arbitrations and made good commercial sense where, as in the present case, the vessel became effectively an “arrived ship” when waiting off the port at a place where it was customary for vessels to be held pending the availability of a berth, and when it had been shown that the designated loading port exercised administrative control over the waiting area.
關(guān)于租家的第二個(gè)抗辯，法官認(rèn)為合同里明確要求NOR遞交必須accompanied那些相關(guān)的檢驗(yàn)檢疫，因此NOR無(wú)效。
However, the charterers’ second contention (that the tendering of the NOR was invalid because certain essential charterparty requirements had not been fulfilled at the time NOR was tendered), was well founded. The wording of the charterparty made it clear that a NOR could not validly be tendered unless it was “accompanied” by the relevant pass or passes. That could only be achieved if the necessary inspection had been performed and its result made known. That of course meant that the inspection had to precede and not follow the tendering of the NOR. In the present case, the inspection had taken place subsequently to the tendering of the NOR.

租家認(rèn)為在第二個(gè)港應(yīng)該遞交NOR，但法官認(rèn)為除非合同明確規(guī)定，要不在第二個(gè)港無(wú)需遞交NOR。
The next issue to be considered was whether a further NOR was required to be tendered at the second loading port. The tribunal would agree with the owners that, unless there was a clear requirement written into the charterparty to the contrary, no NOR was required. That was a well established principle, logically based on the assumption that once the vessel had been tendered for loading at the first port, charterers were expected to a large extent to control the vessel and to be in a position to monitor progress of the loading operations. There was no merit in the charterers’ argument that clause 28 of the charterparty (which expressly dealt with the dispensation of the need to tender a NOR at the second discharging port) should be taken to infer that such further NOR was called for at the second loading port.

法官Branson 在Burnett Steamship案中也提到：
The charterers should know near enough without a fresh notice of readiness at what time they are to have their cargo ready at the port to which they have ordered the ship to go.

在London Arbitration 9/11 (2011)833 LMLN2 案里, 法官也判船東無(wú)需在第二裝港Krishnapatnam遞交NOR。

類似的，法官M(fèi)ustill 在 The Mexico I 案中提到，在普通法下，如無(wú)相反規(guī)定，在卸港無(wú)需遞交NOR。
At common law no notice of readiness is required at the discharging port to place the charterers under the obligation to take delivery of the cargo: he is expected to be on the lookout for the ship and for his cargo….
The contract provides for Laytime to be started by the notice ( which means a valid notice) and in no other way.

因此如果租約無(wú)相反規(guī)定，那么在普通法下，只要在第一裝港遞交NOR，而無(wú)需在第二裝港，或卸港再遞交NOR。不用再次遞交NOR的好處是，到第二裝港或卸港可以直接開始起算laytime。

六、船舶需要等潮水是否可以算不可抗力？是否可以扣除不算laytime？

先來(lái)了解一下關(guān)于laytime和demurrage的幾個(gè)基本常識(shí)。
Laytime一經(jīng)起算，不會(huì)自動(dòng)終止，除非租約中相反規(guī)定，比如有明確的除外條款，或者是船東方面的過(guò)失造成的，或者是船東把船挪做他用。
參《Shipping Law》Chapter 11-Laytime and Demurrage
Once laytime begins, it will fun continuously against the charterers unless:
1. There is an  express provision in the charter to interrupt the running of laytime,
2. Delay is caused by the fault of the shipowners,
3. The shipowners remove the ship for their own purposes.

在Stolt Tankers v Landmark 案中，船在Bombay錨地等泊，船長(zhǎng)被告之得等泊15天左右，于是船東安排先去卸別的貨物，法官Andrew Smith認(rèn)為租家無(wú)需為船東區(qū)卸別的貨物支付滯期費(fèi)。 在Re Ropner Shipping Co Ltd v Cleeves Western Valleys Anthracite Collieries Ltd [1927]案中，由于在等貨，船東安排船先去加油，法官也判加油時(shí)間不算滯期時(shí)間。
但是如果是船舶必須進(jìn)行排/壓水才可以安全進(jìn)行裝卸貨的話，如無(wú)相反規(guī)定，那么不可以中斷計(jì)算。如Houlder v Weir[1905] 案中, 法官認(rèn)為where demurrage was held to run continuously while ballast was being put into a ship to enable her to discharge in safety.

現(xiàn)在來(lái)看租約中關(guān)于除外條款是如何規(guī)定的。

合同第11條，除外條款規(guī)定如下：
11.e The following time shall not count as laytime and demurrage time:
--Time used for sailing from anchorage to wharf till all fastened at the designated discharging berth
--Time used for joint inspection
--Time used for draft survey during discharging
--Time stoppage caused by adjusting ballast(of deballasting)
--Time stoppaged caused by bad weather
--Stoppage or partial stoppage caused by Owners and partial stoppage as pro rata
--Stoppage caused by Force Majeure unless charterers request the vessel to the dischargeport already in Force Majeure and the vessel already on demurrage.
Discharging shall complete upon the last grab of cargo leaving hatches.

顯然，由于港口吃水限制等原因，造成H輪不能順利通過(guò)遼東灣淺灘，不是船東方面的過(guò)失，租家不可以依據(jù)此條除外條款扣除不計(jì)算laytime。

參照在同意租家去鲅魚圈港口之前簽訂的《H輪直靠鲅魚圈》協(xié)議如下：
1、引航員必須在遼東淺灘前登輪，以協(xié)助船舶通過(guò)遼東淺灘； 2、船舶必須在高潮時(shí)段通過(guò)禁航區(qū)附近的淺水區(qū)； 3、引航員攜帶DGPS定位儀，以“xx”輪通過(guò)的航跡為基礎(chǔ)通過(guò)遼東淺灘，即靠近禁航區(qū)航行，并攜帶天津海測(cè)大隊(duì)海圖； 4、通過(guò)時(shí)應(yīng)適當(dāng)降速； 5、巡邏艇或引水船在前開路，以免他船妨礙安全航行； 6、通過(guò)淺水區(qū)前，長(zhǎng)興島潮汐站及時(shí)報(bào)告潮高； 7、風(fēng)力六級(jí)及六級(jí)以上，應(yīng)限制通過(guò)。

船長(zhǎng)在沒(méi)有引水和拖輪情況下，加上碰上大風(fēng)天氣7-8級(jí)，選擇拋錨理由充分。要不萬(wàn)一擱淺破底了，租家可能反過(guò)來(lái)說(shuō)是船東自己造成的，自己放棄了協(xié)議允許的權(quán)利不用，損失船東自己承擔(dān)。相反，租家為了節(jié)省費(fèi)用，并未安排引水及拖輪，違反了該協(xié)議。另一方面，假如租家安排了拖輪和引水，船舶也許就能順利穿過(guò)遼東灣淺灘區(qū)，因此該風(fēng)險(xiǎn)不屬于不可抗力。就算租家抗辯說(shuō)屬于不可抗力，那么依據(jù)該條款第二條，租家得安排船舶去另外一個(gè)安全港口，要么就支付滯期費(fèi)+燃油，也就是按detention賠償船東損失。

再來(lái)看看兩個(gè)較早的判例。

總結(jié)：

有人的地方就有江湖，有江湖的地方就有陷阱。因此為了避免自己掉入別人的陷阱，那么船東和租家，在最終恰定租約前，最好盡力清晰地表達(dá)彼此簽約的真實(shí)意圖，行成條文并入到租約中去。

如案中的租家如果想限制NOR的遞交，比如必須到達(dá)還得在港界內(nèi)，獲得入港許可并清關(guān)，在工作時(shí)間內(nèi)以傳真的方式遞交給租家及其代理，事實(shí)上及法律上準(zhǔn)備就緒可以缷貨，而且NOR遞交后6小時(shí)內(nèi)獲得入港許可，要不NOR無(wú)效，那么在恰定租約時(shí)候，應(yīng)該這樣完整地表述
Notice of Readiness only could be tendered upon ①arrival at discharging port(s) ② within port limit ③during office hours between 0800-1700 ④by fax to ⑤Charterers and their agent, provide that the vessel is⑥ pysically and legal ready for discharging, ⑦in free pratique and ⑧custom clearance. NOR will be not be valid if free pratique could not be granted ⑨within 6 hours after tendered.

而不能寫成這樣：
Notice of readiness should be tendered any time any day Sunday Holiday included, provided the vessel is ready for discharging.

然后辯說(shuō)真實(shí)的意圖是前面的，要不然如法官Bucknill如下解釋：
The cardinal rule…in interpreting such a charter-party as this, is that the charterers will pay hire for the use of the ship unless he can bring himself within the exceptions. I think he must bring himself clearly within the exceptions. If there is a doubt as what the words means, then I think those words must be read in favour of the Owners because the charterers is attempting to cut down the Owners’ right to hire.
條款中模糊的字眼將做出對(duì)船東有利的解釋，因?yàn)樽饧蚁肟圩狻?br /> 同理，NOR條款中模糊的地方，也將做出對(duì)船東有利的解釋，因?yàn)樽饧也幌胱宭aytime開始計(jì)算，不想付滯期費(fèi)。

這些前面標(biāo)注的①到⑨都是遞交NOR的條件，違反了任何一條，在遞交的當(dāng)時(shí)都不會(huì)是有效的NOR，如法官Thomas 在The Agamemnon 案中說(shuō)的：
A notice of readiness which is effective to start Laytime running can only be given when the conditions set out in the charterparty for its giving have been met. A notice that does not meet those conditions is not a valid notice.
當(dāng)然，英國(guó)法下訂約自由，如法官在The MV Arundel Castle案中說(shuō)，It is always open to the parties to provide more specifically for what it is they intend。

因此，如果彼此真實(shí)的意圖已經(jīng)在租約中清晰列明了，不是違法的，那租約就都沒(méi)有問(wèn)題，應(yīng)該被支持接受。

更多資訊敬請(qǐng)留意云關(guān)通官網(wǎng).

云關(guān)通綜合整理網(wǎng)絡(luò)/吾愛(ài)航運(yùn)網(wǎng)等,轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明