CHAPTER 3 第3章
Commencement of laytime 装卸时间的起算
3.232 A similar situation arose in Stanton v. Austin, which concerned a charter for the carriage of a cargo of coal from Sunderland to India. On arrival at the load port, no notice was given and this, the court said, meant that the owners could not claim that the shippers had failed to provide a cargo. However, in A/B Nordiska Lloyd v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd, Scrutton LJ said:
. . . whether it is enough that the charterer knows of the presence of the ship from other circumstances, although he has no notice from the shipowner . . . is not decided by Stanton v. Austin and remains open for decision in some other case...
3.232在Stanton v. Austin案，也产生了类似问题，是关于从英国Sunderland到印度运输煤炭的租船合同。船抵达装货港后，没有递交通知书，因此，法院认为，这就意味着船东不能对托运人就未提供货物提起诉讼。然而，在 A/B Nordiska Lloyd v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd案，Scrutton大法官却说：
……尽管承租人从船东那里没有收到通知书，但他已从别的途径了解到该轮的情况，这一点是否已足够……关于此种说法在Stanton v. Austin案中未曾做出判决，其它案例中也没有判定解决……
3.233 In Franco-British Steamship Co v. Watson & Youell, the City of Amiens, the vessel concerned, completed discharging inward cargo at Braila and then gave notice of readiness to load to the new charterers, who had an ofﬁce at Braila. The charter provided for loading at Braila and/or Galatz. After a few days, as there was no cargo for her at Braila, the charterers ordered her to Galatz where they also had an ofﬁce, and where they also acted as ship’s agents for the City of Amiens. No notice of readiness in writing was submitted by the master on arrival at Galatz. However, said Horridge J:
There is no request that notice in writing should be given and, therefore, verbal notice would be sufﬁcient... One of the two houses of the charterers, the one at Braila, had notice that the ship was ready to load. When she came to Galatz, the captain would have to see the charterers, as the ship’s agents, with reference to passing her through the Custom House and other matters, and under these circumstances it seems to me impossible to say there was no material on which the umpire could ﬁnd that the charterers had notice of readiness of the ship to load... I cannot say time did not run because the master did not go up into the ofﬁce and say formally: ‘‘I give you notice my ship is ready to load’’.
3.233在Franco-British Steamship Co v. Watson & Youell案，有关船舶City of Aniens轮在（罗马尼亚多瑙河口）Braila港卸完了进口货后，接着向新承租人递交了装货准备就绪通知书，后者在Braila港有办公室。租船合同中规定在Braila港和/或Galatz港装货。过了几天后，承租人由于在Braila港没有该轮的货物，就指示她前往Galatz港，在那儿他们也有办公室，并且他们是作为City of Amiens轮的船方代理。船舶抵达Galatz港后，船长未递交书面的准备就绪通知书，尽管如此，Horridge法官还是说：
3.234 It seems probable that where no written notice is given or required by the charterparty, the shipowner must show either that the charterer (or shipper) was aware of the vessel’s readiness to load or, if he cannot show actual knowledge, that the charterer, etc., should have been so aware from facts actually known to him. Clearly, it would be easier to show this with regard to a vessel arriving in ballast at a very small port than one arriving to discharge a previous cargo at a large and complex one.
3.235 The question of whether additional notices are necessary at subsequent loading ports was considered in Burnett Steamship Co Ltd v. Olivier & Co Ltd. In this case, the steamship Burnhope was chartered to load cargo at a number of ports in Crete and at Alexandria. The charter provided for ‘‘lay days to commence on the day following notice of readiness to load . . . ’’. In his judgment, Branson J said:
On the other hand, it is said that though the charterparty only speaks of one notice, as you ﬁnd that the ship is chartered to go from port to port and not as an empty ship at the disposal of the charterers, the business of the contract makes it necessary to imply an obligation to give notice of readiness at each port to which the charterers are entitled to order the ship...
. . . it seems to me, if I have to assume what is the business of the matter, that 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.
He therefore concluded that additional notices were not necessary.
3.235在Burnett Steamship Co Ltd v. Olivier & Co Ltd案中，曾经探讨了在接下来的装货港是否有必要再次递交通知书的问题。该案中，Biimhope轮出租往希腊克里特岛的几个118黑白图库和埃及Alexandria港装货。租船合同中规定‘装卸时间从装货准备就绪通知书递交后起算……’Branson法官在他的判决词中这样说：
3.236 Whilst it is usual for the charterer to be responsible for loading, it is not uncommon for charters to contain a cesser clause making the receivers liable for what happens at the discharge port(s). However, whether the receiver or charterer is liable for discharge port demurrage, in either case notice of readiness need not be given at the discharge port unless expressly provided in the bill of lading or charter or there is a custom to that effect at that port. With regard to charterers, Brett LJ said in Nelson v. Dahl:
. . . the ship is ready so far as she is concerned to unload. The shipowner, however, is not bound to give notice that this ship is so arrived and is ready.
3.236尽管通常都是由承租人负责装货，但在租船合同中加入一个责任终止条款，要求收货人负责卸货港发生的一切费用的现象也并非罕见。然而，不论是收货人还是承租人来承担卸货港的滞期费，每一种情况下，在卸港都没有必要再递交准备就绪通知书，除非提单或租船合同中有明确的规定，或者该港习惯上这样要求。针对承租人，Brett大法官在Nelson v. Dahl—案中说道：
3.237 In a series of early cases, it was held that similar principles apply as between shipowners and bills of lading holders.
3.238 In Akties Laboremus v. Steaua Francaise, one of the arguments raised was that the notice of readiness was invalid because it did not purport to be signed by the master. Dismissing that argument, Roche J said:
I am not prepared to dispose of the case on that ground either. I do not decide it, but unless something emerges to the contrary my impression is that that which the captain is required to do he may do by an agent as well as by himself. There would seem to be good reason for that. When a captain is in a foreign port—a Norwegian in a Romanian port—he may require to give notice in a foreign language, and there is good reason why he should do it by means of an agent. It must be a notice given while the ship is there, and given on behalf of the captain.
3.238在Akties.Laboremus v. Steaua Francaise案中，其中提出的一个争议是：该准备就绪通知书是无效的，因为它并没有声明这是由船长签署的。拒绝了这一争议，Roche法官说道：
Express provisions 明示条文
3.239 A typical charter provision relating to the giving of notice of readiness is that contained in clause 11 of the Exxonvoy 84 form of charter, which reads as follows:
NOTICE OF READINESS. Upon arrival at customary anchorage or waiting place at each loading and discharging port or place, Master or Vessel’s agent shall give Charterer or its representative notice by letter, telegraph, telex, radio or telephone (if radio or telephone, subsequently conﬁrmed promptly in writing) that Vessel is in all respects ready to load or discharge cargo, berth or no berth.
3.240 The Voylayrules 1993 also provide:
‘‘IN WRITING’’ shall mean any visibly expressed form of reproducing words; the medium of transmission shall include electronic communications such as radiocommunications and telecommunications.
3.241 In The Adolf Leonhardt, Staughton J held that a notice initiated by radio, but reaching the charterers’ agents in written form, qualiﬁed as written notice within clause 13 of the Centrocon charter.
3.241在Adolf Leonhardt 案，Staughton法官判定：开始通过无线电通知，之后又补交给承租人的代理是以书面形式，这符合标准谷物租船合同中第13条款中所规定的有关书面通知的要求。
3.242 A common provision is a requirement that notice be given within ofﬁce hours. An indication of how such a clause might be interpreted is given by two decisions of London arbitrators, both relating to whether Saturday morning could be considered as within ordinary ofﬁce hours, when the ofﬁce to which notice was given was in fact closed.