欢迎来海员网!没有海员的贡献世界上一半的人会受冻,另一半人会挨饿,关心海员,关爱海员,关注海员, 关注海员网www.ihaiyuan.com,属于中国海员自己的网站
海员网_海员之家_海员招聘网_船员网_船员之家_船员招聘网_中国海员网服务第一门户
政策问答
船员求职
船东招聘
证书查询
新闻综合
查询校企
关键字: 

《装卸时间与滞期费》第二章——装卸时间条款-连载(九)

发布者:海员网|更新时间:2018-04-16 20:02:31|咨询可以加微信:cyfu01 | 208人评论)

我要求职 我要招聘 职务晋升 办海员证 培训招生 知识更新

  《装卸时间与滞期费》第6版

  Laytime Clauses 装卸时间条款

  2.67 On this basis, demurrage would have commenced one hour after work recom?menced on 5 June, i.e. at 08 00.

  2.67在此基础上,滞期费就应该在6月5日作业开始(即0800)一小时之后才开始起算 。

  2.68 However, as has been discussed earlier, the House of Lords took the view in the Reardon Smith case that a working day was not a cut down calendar day, and the description ‘‘working’’ was used to distinguish such a day from a non-working day such as a Sunday or holiday. The method shown above therefore no longer applies.

  2.68然而,正如我们在前面已经讨论过的那样,上议院采纳了在Reardon Smith—案中的观点,即工作日并非是被缩短了的日历日,因此,‘可工作的’这一词的描述当时是被用来区别非工作日的一天,例如星期日或节假日等。上述所介绍的那种计算方法因而也就不再适用了。

  2.69 In Reardon Smith Line v. Ministry of Agriculture, Viscount Radcliffe, Lord Keith of Avonholm and Lord Devlin all gave some guidance on how time should be calculated where weather prevents, or would prevent if the vessel was in its loading/ discharging place, the working of cargo for part of a day. The remaining Law Lords were content to agree with Lord Devlin. The views that were expressed were in fact obiter, but since they have now stood for many years, they may be considered as authoritative.

  2.69在Reardon Smith Line v. Ministry of Agriculture案中,Radcliffe子爵、Keith of Avonholm勋爵(Keith勋爵的封号,头衔)以及Devlin勋爵对于天气妨碍作业时,或者,假设船舶当时是正在其装/卸作业的位置而天气将会妨碍作业时,用于货物装卸作业的时间不足一天时,时间应该如何计算,都提供了一些指导性的意见。上议院其余的各位大法官都表示愿意赞成Devlin勋爵的意见。当时曾被表述的那些观点实际上是法官附带作出的言论,但是由于它们已经持续好多年之久,它们可能已被认为是权威性的了。

  2.70 All three of the speeches mentioned agreed that some fraction of the working day should be allowed and all said that the actual calculation was a question of fact.

  2.70所提及的这三人个的发言都一致认为,应该允许把工作日分成几个部分,并且都说,实际计算是一个事实问题。
  


  2.71 Lord Devlin, having earlier pointed out the dif?culties in ascertaining what are the normal hours of working, went on to reject the suggestion made in NV Maatschappij Zeevart v. Friesacher Soehne (The Leto) that these excluded overtime, which he held to be the rule rather than the exception in most ports. Later on, having again referred to this, he continued:

  I think that the best that can be done by way of expansion of the phrase ‘‘weather working days’’ is to infer that it is intended by it that a reasonable apportionment should be made of the day—Lord Russell of Killowen CJ based his decision on an ‘‘equitable view’’ according to the incidence of the weather upon the length of the day that the parties either were working or might be expected to have been working at the time.

  Viscount Radcliffe, however, was more speci?c:

  But in my opinion the basic calculation in such case should be determined by ascertaining what part of the calendar day was used, if loading was actually being done, or could reasonably have been used, if there was in fact no loading. The proportion which this bears to the working hours of the ship should be charged to the shipper. Thus, if those hours are decided by the arbitrator to have been 16 hours out of the 24, and, of those 16, four have been obstructed by bad weather, three-quarters of the whole day, that is 18 hours, are for the shipper’s account.

  2.71 在较早的时候Devlin勋爵就已经指出了在确定什么是正常的工作时间方面的诸多困难,进而他又否定了在NV MaatwhappijZeevart v. Friesacher Soehne(The Leto)—案中所提出的关于这些时间中不包括额外加班时间的建议,对此他判定,对于大多数港口来说这属于习惯规定而并非是例外情况。后来,当再次提到这个问题时,他还继续说道:

  我认为,通过‘良好天气工作日’这一短语的引伸所能做到的最好一点就是推断出该短语的意图,即是应将一天合理地分成几部分时间?——首席大法官Russell of Killowen勋爵,根据当时在该天中当事双方正在从事作业或者可能会预计到已经在从事作业,天气情况对这一天的长度的影响程度,以一种‘衡平法观点’为基础做出他的判决。

  Radcliffe子爵则阐述得更加明确,他说:

  但是依我之见,这类案件中的基本的计算方法应该如此确定:如果实际上的确从事了装货作业,那么该作业到底占用了该日历日的多少部分时间;或者如果当时事实上并没有进行装货作业,那么该作业本来应该合理地占用该日历日的多少部分时间。此项占用该船作业时间的份额应该由托运人承担。因此,如果经仲裁人裁定那些时间是24小时中的16个小时,而在那16个小时之中有4个小时受到恶劣天气的影响,那么这一整天的四分之三的时间,即18个小时应由托运人承担。

  2.72 He then went on to con?rm that weather interruptions outside working hours did not affect the issue, a point also speci?cally made by Lord Keith, who put the main proposition thus:

  If the amount of interference, or interruption, by weather with work during working hours is applied proportionally to the period of 24 hours a reasonable and equitable result is, I consider, achieved.

  2.72 接着他又进一步确认,在工作时间之外所发生的因天气原因而引起的中断也并不影响这个结论,这也是Keith勋爵曾经专门阐述过的一个观点,他所作的主要陈述是这样的:

  如果把在工作时间内由于天气的原因而对工作的干扰或中断的时间数量按比例地与24小时的时间加以比较,我认为,便会达到一个合理而又公平的结果。
  


  2.73 In order to apply these principles, the following questions must ?rst therefore be answered:

  1. Did the weather interruption occur on a working day ?

  2. What were the relevant hours of work?

  3. Did the interruption occur in working hours?

  4. What is the proportion that the interruption bore to the total daily hours of work?

  5. What is that fraction applied to 24 hours expressed in hours and minutes?

  2.73为了应用这些原则,因此必须首先回答下列问题:

  1. 因天气引起的作业中断是发生在工作日之内吗?

  2. 相关的工作时间是什么?

  3. 作业中断是发生在工作时间内吗?

  4. 中断时间占每天全部的工作时间的比例是多少?

  5. 相对于24小时,那部分时间应表示为多少小时和多少分钟吗?

  2.74 Clearly, if the weather interruption was not on a working day or outside the relevant working hours, then it is itself irrelevant and a full weather working day should be counted. However, this does not of course explain what were the relevant working hours and it would seem from the speeches quoted above that the criterion is not what hours were worked in the port generally or even in a particular trade, but what hours were worked on this ship with this cargo at this point at this time. It is clear that this includes overtime. Thus, if generally throughout the working week, the vessel loaded (or discharged) for 12 hours per day from 07 00–19 00 then these are the relevant hours. The basic hours of any particular trade of workmen essential to cargo operations, e.g. grain elevator operators, longshoremen, etc., are irrelevant. Once the relevant hours are established, the answers to the remaining questions are largely a matter of mathematics. When the answer to Question 5 is arrived at, that is the allowance to be deducted from the day in question to ?nd the laytime used.

  2.74显然,如果因天气而引起的作业中断不是发生在工作日或者是发生在有关的工作时间之外,那么它本身就是不相关的,因而该日应该按完整的良好天气工作日计算。然而,这当然并没有说明什么是有关的工作时间。而从以上所引证的那几段判词中似乎可以看出其判断的标准并不是在那个港口一般性地工作时间或者甚至在某一具体贸易中用于作业的小时数,而是对这艘船这批货在这一地点这个时候用于作业的那些小时数。很明显,这也包括加班时间。因此,一般地说,如果在整个一周内该船每天都一直从0700时至1900时装货(或卸货)达12个小时,那么整周内的这些小时就是有关的工作时间。对于货物作业来说,任何特定行业的专业工人,例如卸粮机操作人员、码头装卸工人等,基本时间数则不在此例。一旦确定了有关的工作时间,则对剩余问题的回答基本上就属于数学问题了。何时获得第5个问题的答案,那就是从有关的一日中减去所允许扣除的时间,从而求出所使用的装卸时间。

  《装卸时间与滞期费》购买链接(点击可购买)

  



  公益出版译著《Aikens on bills of lading》第二版中英文对照,筹款链接(可点击进入)

  海运圈聚焦专栏作者 魏长庚船长(微信号CaptWei)


最新海员招聘
木匠 发布时间:2016-07-15 15:58:07
水手 发布时间:2016-07-15 15:56:32
木匠 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:54:37
大厨 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:53:16
白皮三副 发布时间:2014-06-04 09:52:19
最新海员简历
朱水手 发布时间:2018-12-07 14:21:52
杨大副 发布时间:2018-12-07 09:45:17
葛大副 发布时间:2018-12-03 09:38:09
葛圣彦 发布时间:2018-12-03 09:28:01
战大副 发布时间:2018-11-26 23:09:02

相关栏目

相关新闻

最新企业公告

最新海员证办理

最新报名

会员中心 我要求职 我要招聘 职务晋升 办海员证 培训招生 知识更新 广告投放

海员网站长 点击这里与海员招聘网客服联系 652522234 | 合作请来信

版权归┊海员网 海员招聘网 船员招聘网 海员论坛 船东招聘 船务公司招聘 http://www.ycseaman.com网站所有。

海员网常年法律顾问:Iilw-庄毅雄律师 苏ICP备12072381号-1 海员网还提供船讯网船舶动态查询网站地图