CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
Notice of readiness 准备就绪通知书
3.222 The Voylayrules 1993 provide:
‘‘ NOTICE OF READINESS’’ (NOR) shall mean the notice to the charterer, shipper, receiver or other person as required by the charterparty that the vessel has arrived at the port or berth as the case may be and is ready to load or discharge.
A slightly different deﬁnition appears in Baltic Code 2007:
NOTICE OF READINESS (NOR)—the notice to charterer, shipper, receiver or other person as required by the charterparty that the vessel has arrived at the port or berth, as the case may be, and is ready to load or discharge. (Alternatively: the notice may be speciﬁed to relate to the vessel arriving at/off the port or berth.)
The alternative deﬁnition is perhaps more accurately described as a notice of arrival rather than readiness and is something an owner might wish to give in relation to a claim for detention rather than to commence laytime. However an attempt by owners to say that a notice of arrival was not a notice of readiness in order to obtain an attractive detention rate failed in London Arbitration 15/01. The only cause of potential delay in discharging (other than berth congestion) was the lack of the original bill of lading and/or completion of inward cargo paperwork and/or payment of import duties and railway fees, none of which were within the power of the owners and all of which were the responsibility of the receivers.
3.223 An unusual dispute was resolved in London Arbitration 14/87. In this case, charterers relied upon clause 4 of the Vegoil form of charter which provided for notice to be given ‘‘to the charterer or its agent’’. Notice was not given to the charterers, but was given to the shippers, consignees or forwarding agents, who in each case were the relevant party for arranging loading and discharge. The charterers appointed no agents as such. At the time no complaint was made by the charterers and the arbitrators held that in the circumstances the parties, to whom notices were given, had to be considered as ‘‘agents’’ for the purpose of clause 4. The notices were therefore valid.
3.224 A similar challenge was mounted in London Arbitration 20/98 in relation to clause 6 of an Asbatankvoy form which required notice to be given to the charterer. What happened was that notice was given to the shippers and the local agents. On the facts, it was shown that the local agents were the only agents at the port and acted as agents for both the ship and the shippers. The tribunal therefore held that the shippers and their agents were to be treated as if they were ‘‘charterers’’’ agents for the purpose of tendering notice of readiness unless the charterparty speciﬁcally designated other agents, which it had not done.
3.225 If notice is tendered to agents, they must therefore be those of the shippers or charterers, not just of the owners.
When and how to be given 何时以及如何递交
3.226 The practical answer to this question to be given to any master is as follows:
It is a good working rule... to give notice of readiness and to go on giving such notices in order that, when later the lawyers are brought in, no one shall be able to say: ‘‘If only the master had given notice of readiness, laytime would have begun and the owners would now be able to claim demurrage’’.
and for those to whom these notice are tendered:
Just as it is a good working rule for a master, when in doubt, to give notices of readiness, it is an equally good working rule for charterers’ agents to reject them if there is any conceivable doubt as to their validity.
3.227 At common law, notice of readiness may be given either orally or in writing, or if no notice is given, the shipowner must show that the charterer was aware that the vessel was ready to load, having reached her speciﬁed destination at the ﬁrst load port. Notice need not be given, in the absence of speciﬁc requirements to the contrary, at subsequent load ports or at discharge ports.
3.228 The logic behind this is quite simple. When a vessel arrives at the ﬁrst load port, she may well have on board a cargo from the previous charter for discharge at that port. Whilst the new charterers, through their agents, may well be aware of her arrival, they will not know until they are so informed that she has completed discharge of that cargo and is now at their disposal. The situation is thus analogous to a vessel going on-hire under a time charter.
3.229 Once the charterers know that the vessel is available, they can order her to load and then proceed to subsequent load and discharge ports. Their agents at these, knowing that the vessel is proceeding under charterers’ orders, may be expected to watch for her arrival and upon this event take action accordingly.
3.230 Needless to say, in practice this does not happen so simply and additional notice requirements are invariably included in charterparties.
3.231 In Fairbridge v. Pace, where the owners complained of a failure by the charterers to supply a cargo, Rolfe B said:
Of the arrival of the ship the agents of the defendant may have been bound to take notice; but of the time at which the cargo discharged they could know nothing, and they were, therefore, entitled to notice of that fact from the captain.
3.231在Fairbridge v. Pace案中，船东控告承租人未能供货，Rolfe法官说：