Time CP第六篇 Charter Period.docx

1、Time CP 第六篇 Charter Period第六篇 租约期（Charter Period）(NYPE 46第13行至第15行)-“.That the said Owners agree to let, and the said Charterers agree to hire the said vessel, from the time of delivery, for about_within below mentioned trading limits”在NYPE 93中该内容是在第1条, 但用词大致上是一样的。-6.1 租约期的计算方法 租约期的计算方法是有几种, 按租约通常用什

2、么措辞作这方面的描述然后去给予一个解释:-1. 如果租约内订明一个固定期间 (例如30天, 3个月, 3年等), 法律会默示一个合理的宽限期 (例如3个月租约容许加或减4天)。 若租约在宽限期内完成还船, 虽然已过了约定期限 (如3个月零1天)， 租约仍然有效 (如照样是支付期租原来定下的租金， 即使当时市场急涨)， 不存在承租人有违约行为。 承租人命令一个会在合理宽限期内跑完的航次也是一个合法的最后航次 (legitimate last voyage) 命令, 船东不能拒绝执行, 否则就是违约/毁约。 这法律默示的宽限期的原因是船期不能与飞机或火车班期一样准确, 总会有几天出入。 承租人也无

3、法合理控制太多的变数， 能去保证在3个月的最后一天去不迟不早地还船。 这非但是承租人应该知道的， 船东也应该知道与不会反对一个宽限期， 这就是去默示的基础。 他们双方在订约时, 不管记不记得在租约期加上一个“大约”(about) 的明示宽限期, 只要没有明示拒绝接纳默示宽限期的可能性如说明租约期是“最少/最多” (minimum/maximum) 3个月, 后果是一样的。 实际上, 租约只约定一个固定租约期, 没有任何明示的宽限期 (express margin) (看以下) 现在的实务中较少见, 因为用明示条款往往会比默示的多少天数才算为“合理”宽限期可以稳定得多。2. 如果租约内订明一个范

4、围的期间 (例如4-6个月), 法律也会再去默示一个合理的宽限期, 除非租约期的明示范围已经非常广泛。 在这方面, 英国法律有些不稳定。在The Democritos, 上诉庭在一个4-6个月的租约期默示了5天宽限期。 但在Bocimar v. Farenco Navigation, 仲裁庭不同意在一个11-14个月的租约期默示任何宽限期。 两个和三个月为什么有决定性的分别会比较难理解应该怎样考虑的正确方向与区分。 但一个有关因素可能是因为在Bocimar案件, 承租人是提早了5天还船 (early redelivery), 即比11个月少了5天。 这一来， 如果11-14个月还可以有一个默示

5、的宽限期， 11个月少5天或者14个月多5天都应该没有违约。 但仲裁庭拒绝以默示条款来容许承租人从提早还船变成是合法还船, 认为这不像去默示一个合理宽限期来容许承租人在他不能控制的情况下延迟还船 (late redelivery)， 这才是比较公平。 毕竟， 能够去默示， 其中一个重要的要求就是公平合理。 承租人有尝试申请上诉到英国法院, 但被拒绝。3. 如果在租约内表明租约期是从某个日子至另外一个日子 (例如“between 15th and 31st October, 1912”), 就不会默示任何宽限期。 法院认为双方意向是不希望在10月31日后租约继续可以拖长几天。 但笔者不太接受或理

6、解一个租约期范围的时间以月份表达 (例如以上的4-6个月) 或者以日子表达 (例如10月15-31日) 解释起来为何有这么巨大的分别。4. 如果租约期用比较肯定的字眼, 从“最少”某个期间至“最多”某个期间 (例如“2 months minimum, 3 months maximum”), 法律就不会默示宽限期了。 最长最短的日期都是严格的, 按以上的例子承租人如果还船是比2个月少1天或比3个月多1天都是违约行为, 需要赔偿船东损失。虽然如此, 如果之前有加“大约”这一词 (例如“about minimum 10 months maximum 12 months”), 法院也会为“about”

7、加上一个合理宽限期 (例如14天)。 毕竟， 双方约定了有这一词， 总得给它一点解释。 5. 如果双方除了订明租约期还加上了一个明示的宽限期 (例如“6 six months time charter 20 days more or less”), 法院就会根据所订明的日期作为严格的租约期, 有了“明示”就不必与不能再去“默示”, 不会再另加给宽限期， 只有明示约定的多/少20天宽限期为准。对于如果之前有加“大约”这一词 (例如“about 6 six months time charter 20 days more or less”) 会否再加以额外的宽限期就还未被肯定。 目前案例都是有关“

8、about”这一词被删除掉而所以不需再额外有20天以外的宽限期。 但理论上, 按照以上案例和为了给“about”这一词有一定解释或意思, 有这一词加在租约内应该显示另一个合理宽限期。6. 经常会有TCT的租约内订立的租约期有表示“不保证”(without guarantee) 这一词。 承租人会坚持加上这一词， 因为今天的TCT租约， 既然是期租， 总得去陈述一段时间作为租约期， 这往往是如40、50天不等， 但承租人不一定能控制在这一个租约期内完成他意向的航次), 如果该航次长于/短于40或50天, 船东能否索赔的争议就经常发生。照理说,“不保证”在字面上是很清楚的, 不能因航次长了或短了就

9、说承租人破坏了任何条款或保证。 这一点有明确先例。 也有两个比较近期先例,都是涉及一艘名为Lendoudis Evangelos II的船舶。 两个判决的结果相当接近，都是认为“without guarantee”一词只要承租人对租约期作出一个善意 (good faith) 的估计, 就算没有合理基础 (reasonable grounds) 来估计也无妨。 Longmore 大法官对“善意”作出这个定义:-“ If I were to formulate a test of good faith myself, I would say that all it requires is that

10、 the charterers genuinely believed at the time of fixing that the trip would last between 70 and 80 days”看来这个标准不难达到。 承租人只需有一个表面讲得通的理由去解释为什么会作出70至80天而不是100至120天的估计。 最好可以留下一些当时文件 (contemporaneous documents)作为证据, 例如是这一个分承租人告知承租人的期限， 这就可以避免船东批评承租人是事后想借口去解释他先前不善意的行为。7. 在订约自由下， 租约期也会是约定得十分复杂。 例如在杨良宜先生的一个仲

11、裁案件， 双方是在航运低潮的2000年去谈判一个长达5年的期租合同。 当时船东是希望锁住 (lock-in) 一个5年的租约， 可能因为他对航运市场的中长期不乐观。 但承租人大概是比较乐观之余， 也因为是变数太多而变得谨慎。 所以承租人希望是有选择权可去延长租约期， 而且不止是一个选择权。 这一来， 到了要选择的时候， 如果看看航运市场的势头不对， 承租人大可以不去作出选择。 但船东也不是省油的灯， 所以谈判的初期去把承租人要行使选择权的时间提得很早， 希望不让承租人有太大的取巧机会， 留待最后的一刻在航运市场完全明朗化才去选择。 反正最后双方在讨价还价后， 在NYPE 46之第13到15行去

12、约定租约期是如下:-“That the said Owners agree to let, and the said Charterers agree to hire the said vessel, from the time of delivery, for about minimum 34 and maximum 38 months Time Charter exact period in Charterers option. Charterers option further about 11/about 13 months Time Charter. Charterers optio

13、n additional further about 11/and 13 months Time Charterers. About means 15 days more or less in Charterers option. Optional period to be declared latest 3 months prior to the expiry of the previous period (I.E. latest the last date of the 33rd month and last date of 45th month respectively). Hire f

14、or optional period to count from expiry of the 36th month and the 48th month respectively ”后来航运市场的变化现在是人所共知， 就是急剧上升， 所以很容易想到就是承租人把租约约定的两个选择权去延长租约期都行使了， 这被记录在两个附加协议6与10， 如下:-“Addendum No. 6 Notwithstanding the terms and conditions of above Charter Party Charterers hereby exercise their first option f

15、or further about 11 months/13 months time charter for M/V ABC as per subject Charter Party dated 28th July 2000. Hire for the optional period start to count from 37th month (1st November, 2003) and the hire rate to be USD 11,400-daily including overtime.Addendum No. 10 Notwithstanding the terms and

16、conditions of above Charter Party Charterers hereby exercise their second option for further about 11 months/13 months time charter for M/V ABC as per subject Charter Party dated 28th July 2000. Hire for the optional period start to count from 49th month (1st November, 2004) and the hire rate to be

17、USD 11,400-daily including overtime.”到了接近还船的时候，时为2005/2006年， 双方对租约期的长短有了争议。 承租人认为他可以有的最长租约期为“Maximum 38 months + 13 months + 15 days + 13 months + 15 days”, 这一来还船的日子应该在2006年3月份。 但船东认为承租人可以有的最长租约期为“36 months + 12 months + 11 days + 13 months”。 这是因为租约内说明行使第一个选择权去延长租约期最后的日子是在第33个月的最后一天。 而根据上述节录的附加协议Add

18、endum No. 6， 也在最后一句说明新的每天租金11,400美元是从第37个月开始支付。 这就是船东认为第一个基本租约期只是36个月而不是38个月， 虽然有一个十分明确的“maximum”一字去描述基本租约期。 至于在第一次延长租约期， 虽然租约约定是“大约11至大约13个月”， 但又是因为租约内说明了行使第二个选择权去延长租约期是在第45个月的最后一天。 而根据上述节录的附加协议Addendum No. 10， 也在最后一句说明第二期延长的租金是从第49个月开始支付。 这显示了基本租约期36个月再加上第一期延长的12个月， 总共是48个月， 之后就进入了第二期也就是最后一期的延长租约期

19、了。 反正是， 船东与承租人之间对租约期的不同解释与计算产生了好几个月的差别， 由于这同样的争议涉及两艘船舶， 据知租约与当时市场的租金差价高达200/300万美元。该争议双方委任了杨良宜先生为独任仲裁员， 而且十分紧急， 因为如果船东的解释正确， 承租人就要在1/2个星期内必须还船。 这表示承租人再也不能去为下一个航次订下租约， 而船东也必须马上去自己找下一个租约以免浪费船期。 结果杨良宜先生在2天内就作出了裁决， 判船东的解释正确。 而部分的主要原因可节录如下:-1) On a fine balance, I have some difficulty in accepting the Ch

20、arterers arguments. Whilst I agree that the term of “minimum/maximum” is exceedingly clear to people in the chartering business (and I am sure to the Owners knowledge during the negotiations), it is not the only term or words in the “duration clause” of Line 13-15. As pointed out and highlighted in

21、earlier paragraph, there are a lot more specific words or provisions in the same clause, which I must try to give them meaning and read them as a whole. 2) The Charterers urged me to reject some words in the duration clause of “latest three months prior to the expiry of previous period” due to incon

22、sistency, presumably in contradiction with “maximum 38 months” earlier in the same clause. But based on the rules of construction that I have mentioned earlier, in particular, the guidance of Lord Goff in Para.26, I should not reject words in an executed contract lightly or else it amounts to a rewr

23、iting of the contract or Time Charter Parties.3) It will also involve the change or manipulation of the clear words used by the parties, defining in brackets the last dates of “33rd month and 45th month” to “38th month and 51.5th month”. This, in my view, is going too far into rewriting the Time Cha

24、rter Parties. Obviously if the Charterers are to exercise the option to extend a charter, the market then must be buoyant. It is logical that the Charterers would like to enjoy the maximum initial or basic charter period. But in this case, the duration clause in Line 13-15 specifically says, I repea

25、t: “latest 3 months prior to the expiry of the previous period (I.E. latest the last date of the 33rd month and last date of 45th month respectively)”.4) I am also mindful that the first optional period (as against the initial or basic period) of “about 11 / about 13 months” does not use the strong

26、words of “minimum/maximum”.5) With regards to the Charterers arguments in Para.32(ii) and (iii), it is true that it was the same conclusion in the London arbitration award that was brought to my attention. Although this conclusion is not “unreasonable”, it is at least in my view “unusual”. If the Ch

27、arterers wish to pay higher hire rate to the Owners by reason of having exercised the option, they can agree on an even higher rate for the optional period or periods. There is no need to disturb the original rate agreed upon for the initial or basic period in the last 2 months. If this “unusual” co

28、ntractual arrangement is intended, I expect much clearer words should be used by the parties as stated in the famous canon of construction by Lord Reid in Para.23. Afterall, adequate and punctual hire payment is crucial in a time charter, especially when the market is buoyant, failing which the Owne

29、rs can use as an excuse to withdraw the vessel. 6) Incidentally, in this case, the parties had also made reference to hire payment in the duration clause (Line 13-15) of “Hire for optional period to count from expiry of the 36th month and the 48th month respectively”. Therefore, the reasoning in the

30、 London arbitration award of “Rate of Hire” clause was dealing simply with the rate of hire and not with the duration of charter is inapplicable in this case before me. 7) With all the considerations I have mentioned in Para.28 in the construction, in particular with an intention to support all the

31、provisions and to give meanings to them, notwithstanding the apparent inconsistency, I accept the proposed construction put forward by the Owners. That is, to harmonise the whole duration clause as: (i) If the Charterers do not exercise the option, they can use the vessel for a period within the spa

32、n or spread of “minimum 34 months and maximum 38 months”. (ii) If the Charterers exercise the option or options, then the “expiry of the previous period” (i.e. initial or basic period) will be 36 months and the first option must be declared latest 3 months prior on the last date of the 33rd month. The first optional period hire rate must then start from 37th month as stated in Addendum No.6. By this way of construction, I can give meanings to all the words or provisions used