《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

CHAPTER 3 第3章

Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算

CHAPTER 3 第3章

Commencement of laytime

装卸时间的起算

3.453 The shipowners were right, said the judge. The phrase was intended to impose upon the charterers a contractual obligation of value to the shipowners. The charterers’ obligation was to nominate a reachable place where she could load (i.e. a berth which the vessel, proceeding normally on her arrival, would be able to reach and occupy), whether within or outside the fiscal or commercial limits of the port, without being held up. As the charterers had failed to do this, the judge upheld an award of damages in respect of the delay in the roads.

3.453法官说船东的观点是对的。该短语的目的就是要强加给承租人一项对船东有利的合同义务。承租人的义务就是指定一个船舶能抵达进行装货的地方（比如一个泊位，船舶抵达后即可正常驶入，能够靠泊和占据），不论在港口的财政或商业区之内或者之外，而不应受任何阻挡。由于承租人未能做到这点，法官支持这一判决锚地延迟损失的裁决书。

3.454 A couple of years later, the phrase again came before the courts in a case called Inca Compania Naviera SA and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P Nomikos SA v. Mofinol Inc (The President Brand). Here the port in question was Lourenco Marques, which was the discharge port. On arrival there, the President Brand was unable to cross the bar to enter the port for four days because of her draught. When there was sufficient water for her to cross the bar she did so, anchoring again within the port to await a berth, which became available later the same day but to which she was unable to shift until the following day on the afternoon high tide. On arrival at the second anchorage she gave a valid notice of readiness, an earlier notice being held to be invalid since it was given on arrival off the port before she became an Arrived ship.

3.454几年后，在Inca Compania Naviera SA and Commercial and Maritime Enterprises Evanghelos P Nomikos SA v. Mofinol Inc (The President Brand)案，又将这一短语提交到法庭。在该案所产生问题的卸货港是莫桑比克Lourenco Marques马布托港。当President Brand号抵达后，由于其本身的吃水问题不能通过河口沙洲浅滩进港，因而造成了4天的延误。等水深够了之后，她通过了那个浅滩后，却又在港内抛锚等泊，尽管当天晚些时候就有泊位空了出来，她则不得不等到第二天下午的高潮来临时才能够移泊驶人。在抵达第二个锚位时，该轮递交了一份有效的准备就绪通知书，早先递交的那份则被判为是无效的，因为她当时是在港外尚没成为抵达船时递交的。

3.455 As Roskill J, before whom the case came, said:

The central issue in the case is this: Who bears the risk of the time between Apr. 19 and Apr. 23... when the vessel was unable to cross the bar owing to lack of sufficiency of water?...

3.455正如Roskill法官审理该案时所说：

该案争议的焦点就是：由谁来承担4月19日至4月23日之间的时间损失风险？……当时船舶是由于水深不足而无法驶过浅滩……