我们有许多客户签订了舱位租赁协议，由于航运市场持续低迷，航线经营者已经没有能力获得足够的货物来租赁和装载整艘船舶，此类舱位租赁协议正越来越普遍。
但是，对于从期租租家那里取得舱位或空间的舱位承租人，需要特别注意的是：他们对原船东没有合同权利，并且如果期租租家在期租合约下对原船东违约，致使原船东撤船，舱位承租人和货主可能会处于两难境地。
香港高院有一个案子，Sinokor v Owners of vessel ‘Marcatania’ (2008)，就发生过类似情况。该案中，舱位承租人要求原船东在对期租租家撤船后，将集装箱运至他们要求的目的地。原船东拒绝了这个要求。
提单是由舱位承租人签发的。
法院认为，原船东没有将集装箱运至目的地的义务。原船东和舱位承租人之间没有合同关系，并且提单也不是由原船东签发的。
舱位承租人认为，船长负责监督集装箱的装载和积载，原船东与集装箱舱位承租人之间成立合同关系，但法院没有采纳这一主张。
舱位承租人还主张，原船东是受托人，委托关系受舱位租赁协议约束，因此原船东不仅有责任照料货物，而且有责任完成本航次及交付货物。但该主张被法院拒绝，法院认为原船东和舱位承租人之间欠缺合同相对性，并且没有法律或合理的理由可以解释为什么当期租租家没有能力履行合同时，原船东需承担期租租家的责任。同时，也没有充分的理由可以解释为什么舱位承租人的提单可以约束原船东；原船东并没有批准或看见提单，原船东仅承担租约下，期租租家依据租约装货而产生的责任。
因此，原船东与舱位承租人之间的任何委托关系，必须同时受期租租约约束。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
Owner under no duty to Slot charterer
We have many clients who enter into slot charter agreements and such agreements are increasingly common due to the poor shipping market which does not allow a liner operator to charter and load a complete vessel.
It is however important for slot charterers of slots or space from the time charterers to be aware they have no contractual rights with the head owner and in the event the time charterers default under the time charterparty with the head owners enabling the head owners to withdraw the vessel, the slot charterers and cargo owners may find themselves in a difficult position.
The foregoing circumstances was the subject of a case in the Hong Kong High Courts. In Sinokor v Owners of vessel ‘Marcatania’ (2008) the slot charterers required the head owners after they had withdrawn the vessel from the time charterers, to carry the containers onto their destination. The head owners refused.
The bills of lading were issued by the slot charterers.
It was held the head owners were not obliged to carry the containers onto destination. There was no contract between the head owners and the slot charterers and further the bills of lading were not issued by the head owners.
The slot charterer’s argument failed that because the master supervised the loading and stowage of the containers, the head owners had entered into a contractual relationship with the slot charterer.
The slot charterer’s additionally argued the head owners was a bailee and the terms of the bailment was subject to the slot charter agreement, and hence there was a duty for head owners not only to take reasonable care of the cargo, but also to complete the voyage and deliver the cargo. This was rejected by the Court as there was no privity of contract between the head owners and slot charterers and there was no legal or reasonable reason why the head owners should assume the liabilities of the time charterer if the time charterer was insolvent. There was also no good reason why the slot charterer’s bills of ladings should govern the terms of bailment of the head owners ; The head owners had not approved or sighted the bills of ladings and the head owner’s duties solely arose from the time charterparty allowing the time charterer to load cargo in accordance with the time charterparty.
Accordingly any bailment owed by head owners to the slot charterers must have been also subject to the time charterparty.
See attached file : ALCO20120024Owner under no duty to Slot charterer.pdf
