(b)4,550/4,600 mts sulphate of potash (‘sop’)

(c) 5,200/10%mts granulated muriate of potash (‘gmop’)

（a）和（c）票货的10％大小的边际是出租人的选择，而（b）票的50％范围是承租人的选择。因此，根据船长在最小总货物量为13,730 mts和最大总货物量15,820之间的计算，船舶可以装载各种货量。根据船舶的夏季载重量17,825吨，该船在技术上可以装载最大货物的上限15,820吨，留下2,005吨未使用的载重量，用于船舶常数和燃油等，足以满足这些目的。但是，航行计划时还需要考虑其他因素，即（i）立方容积；（ii）不同等级货物等级隔离；（iii）船舶的稳定性；（iv）途中港口的可用吃水。

承租人声称已经按照租船合同的意图向船长发出了书面装货说明，并且在他准备就绪的通知书中，船长已经确认他打算按照指示装载15,820吨的货物。

船长的证据是，在了解货物后，经与船舶的大副协商，他根据40立方英尺/吨的积载因素制定了预配积载计划。当船舶等待停泊时，在与出租人的办公室人员协商后，船方制定了两个替代配载计划（“第一配载计划”和“第二配载计划”）。第一个配载计划共提供了15,880吨的货物。但是，该船的提议不符合承租人的预定货物数量。第二个配载计划的总货运量为15,880吨，并且与承租人的要求几乎相同。因此，毫无疑问，该船能够在四个卸货港口安全地装载，运输和卸载所有三种肥料等级的最大货量。

但实际上，该船仅装载了15,321.93吨。实际积载计划与第一或第二积载计划无法比较。尽管基于40立方英尺/平方米的积载因素，但它显示了与船员的预计划非常相似，除了gmop和smop积载被转置。与承租人的最大货物要求相比，短缺货物的原因是该船只装载了5,199吨gmop，而最初的配载图计划装载5,720吨的gmop。

问题是：为什么货物没有按照第二个装载计划装载？出租人建议的计划，似乎符合承租人的确切要求，可以安全运输最大货物。

船长的证据是，装货港代理人的代表登上了船舶并要求他修改原始的准备就绪装货的通知书，装载15,820 吨，提到3个等级的mop/ sop，并且支持新的准备就绪通知，指的是一批货物只有15,364.25吨的散装货物。船长已遵守该要求，并解释说他相信代理人代表租船人的利益，并且他没有理由不同意他提出的有关提供足够货物的潜在困难的修改。

船长还说装载完成后，装卸工头向他提供了实际装载计划，表明货物吨位为15,321.93吨。那时，船长意识到船舶装载的不同于船舶初始提供的装载计划。船长否认他希望限制装载货物的数量，或者他主动修改了准备就绪的通知。他认为，港口代理商一直本着诚意和租船人的具体指示行事，并且货物已根据托运人/承租人所要求的配载计划装载。

The master had also said that after loading was completed the stevedore foreman had presented him with the Actual Stowage Plan indicating a cargo tonnage of 15,321.93 mts.At that time the master realised that the vessel had been loaded differently tothe stowage plans presented by the vessel.

The master had denied that he wished to restrict the quantity of cargo loaded or that he had amended the notice of readiness on his own initiative. He believed that the port agent had been acting in good faith and on the specific instructions of the charterers, also that the cargo had been loaded in accordance with the stowage plans presentedin the amount desired by the shippers/charterers.

港口代理对船长所说的版本，修订后的准备通知书提出异议。他们曾说船舶管理部门准备了15,364.25吨的改正的装载计划，该船最终按该计划装载了。承租人声称，船长没有按照他们的书面指示装载最大货物，出租人违反了租船合同。出租人争辩说，船长并不仅限于遵循书面指示，船长他还有义务遵守港口代理人的口头指示，而代理作为承租人的代表。

在仲裁庭看来，由于租船合同第8条的原因，船长有义务遵守承租人的指示，但如果这些指示不合理，他没有义务盲目地遵守承租人的指示。定期租船合同的船长对船舶管理方面的出租人以及船舶雇用方面的承租人具有双重忠诚和责任。那些忠诚的人偶尔会发生冲突，最终，船长对他的出租人以及船舶和船员的安全感至高无上。但是，在本案的情况下，没有这种忠诚冲突。出租人和承租人都在航行计划中发挥了作用，他们的目标是一致的，船舶装载最大可用货物。在这样做时，并没有暗示船舶及其船员的安全会受到损害。

In the tribunal’s view, the master was obliged to follow the instructions of thec harterers by reason of clause 8 of the charterparty, although he was not obliged to blindly follow the charterers’ instructions if those instructions were unreasonable. The master of a time chartered merchant ship had dual loyaltiesand responsibilities, to the owners of the vessel in respect of ship management, and to the charterers in respect of vessel employment.

Every now and then those loyalties conflicted and, ultimately, the master’s supreme loyalty was to his owners and to the safety of his vessel and her crew. However, in the presentcase there was no such conflict of loyalties. The owners and the charterers hadboth taken a role in voyage planning and their aims were consistent - thevessel was to load the maximum available cargo. In so doing, there was no hint that the safety of the vessel and her crew would be compromised.

仲裁庭认为各方都有充足的时间考虑和构建最佳装载布置，通过该装置可以安全装载最大货物。在收到他最初的航程指令后，船长已要求其出租人的租船部门协助积载计划，并立即得到了协助。在早期阶段，出租人已经提出了最好的装载计划（第二个装载计划），虽然船长被要求向承租人询问他们喜欢哪种装载计划，但船长对安全和适当装载船舶的最终责任仍然存在。

All partieshad plenty of time to consider and structure the best loading stowage arrangementby which the maximum cargo could be safely loaded. Upon receiving his initial voyage instructions the master had asked his owners’ chartering department for assistance with the stowage plan and had received immediate assistance.

At an early stage the owners had suggested the best stowage plan (the 2ndStowage Plan) and although the master was instructed to ask the charterers which stowage plan they preferred, the ultimate responsibility for safe and appropriate loading of his vessel remained with the master.

仲裁庭认为尽管没有时间限制，但在船舶靠泊时没有达成协议的装载计划，尽管在靠泊之前准备的三个装载计划中的一个- 第二个装载计划 - 是迄今为止最合适的。该配载计划应该由船长推荐，并且在没有租船人的任何评论的情况下，在早期阶段作为积载计划采用。对于船长承认他和他的驾驶员对于装卸工人已经将货物装载到船而不知道所装的货品级是什么，法庭对此感到非常惊讶。直到装载完成后，船上的驾驶员才知道装载的货舱和吨位。

Despite there being no time restraints, there was no agreed stowage plan by the time thevessel berthed, despite the fact that one of the three stowage plans which had been prepared before berthing - the 2nd Stowage Plan - was by far and away the most suitable. That plan should have been recommended by the master and, in theabsence of any comment from the charterers, adopted as the stowage plan at anearly stage.

The tribunal was extremely surprised at the master’s admission that he and his officers had left the loading to the stevedores without being aware of what product was being loaded in which hold. It was not until loading was completed that the ship’s officers had any idea of what had been loaded where and in which tonnage.

仲裁庭认为即使在装载作业结束时，根据证据，船长发现装卸工人的装载模式既不符合他的预计划积载计划；对于第一个积载计划，或第二个积载计划，并发现gmop的数量超过500吨，船长没有联系出租人或承租人，但只是接受了这种情况，即使他的证据是即便如此可以装满货物。

Even at the end of the loading operation when, on the evidence, the master discovered that the stevedores had loaded in a pattern which conformed to neither his Pre-Plan Stowage Plan; to the 1st Stowage Plan, or to the 2nd Stowage Plan, and discovered also that the quantity of gmop was over 500 tonnes light, the master failed to contact owners or charterers but simply accepted the situation, eventhough his evidence was that even then it was possible to load the full cargo.

仲裁庭认为正确的程序是（a）船长在早期阶段推荐他的首选积载计划-显然是第二个积载计划-船长没有这样做；（b）确保船长自己，出租人及承租人之间达成一项装载计划-而只有一个-并且相应地指示了装卸工人-船长他没有这样做；（c）如对船舶人员区分sop，smop和gmop的能力有疑问，在装载前要求检验样品；（d）确保其驾驶员与码头合作，确保在适当的舱位内装载适当的等级和吨位；（e）在装载作业的各个阶段与出租人及承租人保持紧密联系。

The proper procedure was (a) for the master to recommend his preferred stowage plan at anearly stage - plainly the 2nd Stowage Plan - which he did not do; (b) to have ensured that one stowage plan - and one only - was agreed between himself,owners and charterers and that the stevedores were instructed accordingly -which he did not do; (c) if in doubt about the ship’s officers’ ability to distinguish between sop; smop and gmop, to have asked for samples for examination prior to loading; (d) to have ensured that his officers worked withthe terminal to ensure that appropriate grades and tonnages were loaded inappropriate holds; and (e) to have liaised closely with owners and charterers at all stages of the loading operation.

仲裁庭认为如果这些日常活动得到适当遵循，问题就不会出现。相反，船舶的装载是留给岸上码头操作人员和装卸工人的，因为他们最好决定如何装载远洋轮船。显然，装卸工人是所有有关人员的仆人，应该在船长的密切控制下工作，而不是替代船长的位置。

If those routine activities had been followed properly, the problem would not havea risen. Instead, the loading of the vessel had been left to the shore terminal officials and stevedores on the basis that they were best placed to decide on how an ocean-going ship should be loaded. Plainly the stevedores were the servants of all concerned and should have been working under the close controlof the master, not in his place.

对于出租人唯一的理由是，如果仲裁庭发现按照港口代理人的命令，船长实际上是遵守了承租人的命令。但是，仲裁庭认为对于谁向谁说的话，存在着证据冲突。港口代理商否认他们已下达命令。根据他们的事件版本，他们只是做了船长告诉他们的事情。然而，很明显，到达和船长预期装载的货物之间的事情已经发生变化，并且根据他的事件版本，他在靠泊时被告知了什么。船长的补救措施很简单，即联系出租人和/或承租人澄清。但船长他没有这样做，因而不必为自己未能监督或控制的装卸工人的后续行动承担责任。

因此，仲裁庭认为出租人违反了租船合同第8条。承租人有权获得赔偿，以赔偿他们因不必要的货物运输而造成的运费损失。

The only escapefor the owners from those conclusions was if the tribunal were to find that byfollowing the orders of the port agents, the master was in fact following the orders of the charterers. However, there was a conflict of evidence as to whatwas said by whom to whom. The port agents had denied that they had givenorders.

By their version of events, they merely did what the master told them. It was, however,plain that matters had changed between arrival and the cargo which the master expected to load and, by his version of events, what he was told on berthing.The remedy for the master was easy, namely to contact the owners and/orcharterers for clarification. He had failed to do so and thereby, unnecessarily took upon himself responsibility for the subsequent actions of the stevedores whom he failed to supervise or control.

Accordingly, the owners were in breach of clause 8 of the charterparty. The charterers were entitled to damages to compensate them for the loss of freight on cargo unnecessarily shut-out.

提及本案的目的是，出租人及船长得保留好书面证据，尤其是代理的指示。在本案中，仲裁庭认为代理的口头指示和船长的说辞存在冲突，船长未能证明代理曾经给予了少装货的指示，而同时船长又未能进一步找承租人核对货量。从而被判出租人违约，船长未能听从承租人指示，承租少装货索赔成功。

这类所涉及的主要问题是书面证据，如果船长在听到代理口头要求少装货的时候，要求代理给予书面确认，同时将该确认抄送给承租人，那么基本上就可以避免少装货。

之前有文章介绍过书面证据的重要性问题。类似地如果船长因为港口MSD的限制，给承租人或者代理发了配置图仅仅是基于MSD来配载，那么如果不做保留的话，事后承租人会反过来声称，是船长的原因，没有宣所需要的最大货量，所以他们没有配相应的货物及安排相应的潮水。

那么在这种情况下，出租人将处于非常被动的位置，很大程度上会被认定构成弃权。因此，船长在发预配积载图（pre-stowage plan）的时候，不管港口MSD如何，均按船舶自身最大能装的货量来。如果由于承租人或发货人，港方安排方面造成了亏舱，那么保留索赔的权利。

关于装卸港，或者航程途中可能有吃水限制的，船长在制作配载图的时候务必小心。在之前介绍过的文章，The “Aquacharm”[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.7 (C.A.)案中，该轮在Rotterdam交船后，便按承租人指示到美国的Baltimore装煤炭，计划过巴拿马运河到日本卸。该轮在Baltimore装了约43,000吨煤炭，于11月8日完货开航。

但是当该轮抵达巴拿马运河的Cristobal时，巴拿马运河当局拒绝让该轮通过，原因是该轮超过了允许的最大吃水。经过相当长时间的考虑，最终决定将636吨煤炭卸另一艘名为Mini Lux的船中，后者随后跟着该轮一起通过运河，在Balboa再装船。转运的总成本，包括雇用Mini Lux的成本为71,470美元。此外，该轮延误了8天23小时45分钟。

本案主要是因为船长在配载的时候装多了货物，导致了在过巴拿马运河的时候因为船艏下沉导致了超吃水，被拒绝过运河。进而需要安排驳船减载，引起了关于停租及减载费用的争议。但商事法院的Lloyd法官及上诉院的Denning勋爵均认为The“ Aquacharm”轮完全能提供承租人所需要的减载的服务，船舶完全运作并没有被阻碍，因此承租人不得停租。

此外，因为出租人可以凭借海牙规则的保护，对于因船长在管理船舶过程中因疏忽所造成的损失免责，承租人在这点上无权找出租人追偿损害赔偿。而关于减载驳运货物的费用，Denning勋爵认为是由于船长过失，装多了货物造成的；默示索赔权基于其真正的解释，并不包括因船长过失造成的转运费用，在这点上判出租人索赔转运费用不成立。

需要注意的是，在这个案中的停租条款如下，只是说deficiency of men。

That in the event of the loss of time from deficiency of men or stores, fire, breakdown or damage to hull, machinery, or equipment, grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo, drydocking for the purpose of examination or painting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of the vessel, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost.

但是如果停租条款如下，所说的是deficiency and/or default of crew, officers or Owners’ servants，那么情况将不一样。

“That in the eventof the loss of time from deficiency and/or default of crew, officers or owner’s servants ordeficiency of stores, fire, breakdown or damages to hull, machinery orequipment grounding, detention by average accidents to ship or cargo unless resulting from inherent vice, drydocking for the purpose of examination orpainting bottom, or by any other cause preventing the full working of thevessel unless all above are caused by charterers/charterer’s servants/employees, the payment of hire shall cease for the time thereby lost; and if upon the voyage the speed be reduced by defect in breakdown of any parts of herhull, machinery and or equipment, the time so lost, and the cost of any extrafuel consumed in consequence thereof, and all directly related expenses shallbe deducted from the hire. Any stevedore and/or labour charges for breakdown of vessel’s equipment not caused by charterers to be for owner’s account but maximum one shift.”

在London Arbitration 23/5案中，涉及的船舶是一艘41,938载重吨的散货船，租约是NYPE格式，期租时间至少为5个月至7个月，在租约下出现了争议。出租人就最终结算余额以及利息和费用索取64,121.86美元。在诉讼过程中，承租人提出向出租人支付无可争议的12,330.77美元。但是，出租人声称他们只收到了11,995.26美元。承租人否认对索赔金额不承担责任。有三个争议领域，即（1）卸货港的停租，（2）卸货港的出租人的费用，以及（3）承租人于2004年10月支付的短期款项。

在租船合同期间，承租人签订了一份合同，运载一批小麦。船长意识到卸货港的最大到达平均龙骨吃水为9.75米。2003年11月26日，船长提供了35,363吨货物的预装载装载计划，以及在抵达卸货港9.75米盐水（甚至龙骨）的到达吃水。该船装载34,936.834吨。

2004年1月12日，该船抵达卸货港在锚地抛锚等待靠泊卸货。1月20日，港务局指示船舶从锚地移到减载泊位。该移泊于当晚22时28分开始，该船于1月21日0106靠泊。但是，当地港口代理商签署的事实记录记载“0250 [1月21日]船舶出于安全原因移回锚地。港务员发现吃水为10.05米而不是船方宣布的9.75米。”

船舶返回锚地。1月24日0122，该轮从锚地移泊到减载泊位，在0345靠妥，并于1130开始减载。到1900，该轮的吃水已降至9.75米。减载作业一直持续到1月24日的2300，到那时，吃水进一步减少到9.58米，这足以让船舶转移到筒仓泊位。 1月25日1429时，该船从减载泊位，于1550年抵达筒仓泊位。

由于船舶超吃水造成的减载时间延误，承租人于1月20日至1月24日从2248年起停租，他们从租金中扣除了4,318.75美元。承租人提出，由于船长疏忽计算可装船上的货物数量从而船舶的全部运作受到阻碍，这种疏忽导致船舶由于卸港吃水不足而无法靠泊在卸货港。因此，由于船长的疏忽而导致船舶的全面工作被阻止，该疏忽属于租船条款中“default ofcrew, officers or owners’ servants”的范围。

出租人对船长是疏忽大意提出异议。虽然接受进入卸货港的最大吃水深度为9.75米，但出租人他们认为，在进入筒仓泊位之前，船舶必须减载，无论是否有多余的吃水或堵塞状况。船舶的全部运作没有被阻止，因为船舶所需的服务是卸载货物，正如1月24日发现的那样，船舶能够做到。因此，无论该轮的抵港吃水如何，都能够提供所需的服务。

根据事实记录，“出于安全原因”港务局拒绝让船舶于1月21日开始减载。目前还不清楚这是否仅仅与船舶的中垂状况，超吃水或没有平稳的龙骨有关。然而，尽管船舶处于减载泊位，港务局认为船舶的吃水条件严重不足，以至于拒绝为该轮减载。

Held, that according to the statement of facts, the port authority refused to allow thevessel to start lightering on 21 January “for security reasons”. It was unclearwhether that related solely to the vessel’s hogged condition, the excessive draft or that she was not on an even keel. However, despite the vessel being atthe lightering berth, the port authority considered her draft condition deficient to such a serious extent so as to refuse to lighten her.

出租人已经承认该船有一个显著的中垂，这表明即使是出租人也认识到中垂超标，即使不是过量。证据表明，中垂在0.28和0.18米之间。作为商业人士，仲裁庭认为，40,000载重吨船上的中垂在0.28至0.18米之间是严重的，并且不应该在正常的航行过程中发生。

The owners had acknowledged that the vessel had a “significant hog”, which suggested that even the owners recognised that the hog was beyond the norm, if not excessive. The evidence indicated that the hog was between 0.28 and 0.18 metres. The tribunal’s view,as commercial men, was that a hog of between 0.28 and 0.18 metres on a 40,000dwt vessel was serious and should not occur in the normal course of a voyage.

因此，仲裁庭得出结论认为，1月21日，港口当局拒绝让船舶减载是由于船舶超吃水，不均匀的龙骨和中垂状况造成的。因此，鉴于港务局于1月21日决定下令船舶返回锚地时，仲裁庭认为该船舶在她立即要求的第一次服务时，即船舶减载时，并不完全有能力。

Accordingly, the tribunal concluded that on 21 January the port authority refused to allowthe vessel to lighten due to the vessel’s excess draft, the uneven keel and the hogged condition. Therefore, given the port authority’s decision on 21 Januaryto order the vessel to return to the roads, the tribunal was satisfied that thevessel was not fully capable at that time of the first service immediately required of her, namely the lightering of the vessel.

在得出这一结论后，仲裁庭对1月20日的2248到1月24日的1900之间停租，无论船舶是否在任何情况下都要减载，船舶的吃水条件都会阻止船舶的全部工作，承租人有权停租。

仲裁庭认为接下来的问题是“cause”是否属于停租条款的范围。第15条中包含“and/or defaultof crew, officers or owner’s servants or deficiency of stores”的字样表明当事人意图包括船员和人员（包括船长）的过失。中垂是显著的，并且比吃水高达0.25米的事实表明，在概率的平衡上，船长是疏忽的。有证据表明船长的原始计算结果显示船舶可以再装载427吨。此外，船舶的抵港条件表明船长的积载计划和/或燃油管理是计算错误的促成因素。因此，鉴于船长意识到这艘船不仅要以9.75米的平龙骨吃水抵达，而且不应该带着显著的中垂抵达卸港是不言而喻的，船长必须接受港口当局于1月21日拒绝减载船舶决定的最终责任。

Having reached that conclusion, the tribunal was satisfied that between 2248 on 20 and 1900 on 24 January, the full working of the vessel was prevented by the vessel’s draft condition, regardless whether the vessel had to lighten in any event.

The next question was whether the “cause” fell within the ambit of the off hire clause. The inclusion of the words “and/or default ofcrew, officers or owner’s servants or deficiency of stores” in clause 15 indicated that the parties intended to include errors of the crew and officers, including the master. Thefact that the hog was “significant” and up to 0.25 metres over draft suggested that, on the balance of probability, the master was negligent. That was supported by the evidence thatthe master’s original calculations showed that the vessel could load a further 427 tonnes.

Moreover, thevessel’s arrival condition suggested that the master’s stowage plan and/ormanagement of bunkers were contributory factors in the miscalculation.Therefore, given that the master was aware that not only was the vessel toarrive with an even keel of 9.75 metres, but that it was axiomatic that she should not arrive with a “significant” hog, he had to accept ultimate responsibility for the port authority’s decision to refuse to lighten the vessel on 21 January.

因此，仲裁庭裁定船长的不足导致船舶带着超吃水抵港，无论出于何种原因，该吃水对港务局来说是不可接受的。此外，船长在错误计算船舶到达条件方面的不足之处属于经修订的停租条款的范围。

Accordingly,it was the master’s deficiency which caused the vessel to arrive with a draftwhich, for whatever reason, was unacceptable to the port authority. Furthermore, the master’s deficiency in miscalculating the vessel’s arrival condition fell within the ambit of the off-hire clause as amended.

然而，仲裁庭认为并没有像承租人所声称的那样浪费太多时间。正确的时间损失和停租时间是从1月21日0106开始，当该船到达第一个减载泊位并可以开始减载时，直到1月24日1900，当时该船的吃水减少到9.75米。在此基础上，该船舶被停租了3天17小时54分钟。按金额计算，作为停租的索赔额减少了净租金42,138.28美元至41,116.71美元，导致承租人的索赔减少1,021.57美元。

However, the charterers had not lost as much time as they claimed. The correct measure of time lost and off-hire was from 0106 on 21January, when the vessel reached her first lightering berth and was available to commence lightering, until 1900 on 24 January, when the vessel’s draft was reduced to 9.75 metres. On that basis the vessel was off-hire for a period of 3days 17 hours and 54 minutes. In monetary terms, the amount claimed as off-hire reduced the net hire of US$42,138.28 to US$41,116.71, resulting in a reductionin the charterers’ claim of US$1,021.57.

其余争议和本案无关不在此说明。从该仲裁案可以看出，如果停租条款关于船员部分被修改为“and/or default of crew, officers or owner’s servants or deficiency of stores”，那么如果承租人给予了相关的港口信息吃水之后，因船长过失造成超吃水，那么出租人将承担责任。

从这些判例可以看出，书面证据及条款的重要性问题，当事人应该给予充分的重视。