通常，租约中附加条款要求，如果租家按照船东互保协会的措辞提供了保函，那么就可以要求船东在没有收到正本提单的情况下放货。Farenco v Daebo v Norden v Deiulmar (2009) 案中，租约链中的每份租约都包含这一条款。
鉴于Daebo在Fareno的要求下仍不能提供必要担保，Farenco直接向货主Stemcor提供了担保，并要求Daebo向Stemcor提供替代担保。Farenco获得法官批准，采取诉讼保全措施，要求转租人提供替代担保，同时法官命令以速审的形式解决以下三个问题。
1. 根据保赔协会保函标准格式中条款三的规定，提供保函的一方是否有义务直接向货主提供担保？
这一问题没有争议，提供保函的一方有义务直接向货物提供担保，各方对此都表示接受。
2. 如果船东已对放船提供担保，条款三中规定的向货主提供担保的义务是否解除？
这个问题的回答有利于船东，即使因船东提供了放船担保而获释，该义务仍没有解除。 如果船东在没有要求租家提供担保的前提下，直接提供了船东自己的担保，那么结论将会不同，因为在船舶获释前，租家没有义务提供担保。
3. 保函中的保证是否以货物交付给特定方为前提条件？
这个问题的回答有利于租家，因为保函中的措辞要求船东向特定方交付货物。尽管租约中的附加条款仅要求船东根据收到的保函，”交付和放行” 货物，并没有要求船东将货物交付给特定方。
结论
1. 保函容易引起法律诉讼，其作为可能被用于帮助欺诈的文件，在法律上是否有执行力存在不确定性。
2. 船东必须首先根据保函，要求租家向货主提供担保，如果租家不提供，船东别无选择只能自己提供担保，为了不影响保函下的权利，船东必须要求租家提供替代担保。
3. 保赔协会无单放货保函标准格式中的措辞对船东不利，应进行修改，因为目前的措辞强加给了船东额外和不合理的义务，即确保交货给特定方，如果货物没有交给特定方，租家就可以不承担保函下的义务，这将使船东处于完全没有保障的境地。
保赔协会保函标准格式措辞：
删除：
“…we, (insert name of party requesting delivery) hereby request you to deliver the said cargo to “X(name of specific party) or to such party as you believe to be or represent X or to be acting on behalf of X” …
替换为：
“…we, (insert name of party requesting delivery) hereby request you to discharge and release said cargo to any party as we instruct…”
4. 如果使用保赔协会保函标准格式措辞，且没有做上述措辞的修改，船东为了保护自己的利益，必须向要求交付方询问他们是否是保函中指定的特定方。船东应在卸货前要求租家确定预期收货人，货物也可以交付给租家指定方，以避免租家依据保函中规定的船东义务来逃避责任。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
Owners must be aware of risks in the LOI format suggested by the International Group of P&I Clubs for delivery of cargo without production of bills of lading
There is commonly a rider clause agreed in charterparties which require the owners to discharge the cargo without production of the original bill of lading subject to provision of an LOI in owner’s P&I Club wording. In the case of Farenco v Daebo v Norden v Deiulmar (2009) there was included in each charterparty down the chain such a clause.
Farenco provided security directly to the cargo owners Stemcor in view Daebo had failed to provide the requisite security despite demands, and called upon Daebo to provide substitute security to Stemcor. Farenco obtained an interim mandatory relief requiring the sub charterer to provide substitute security, and an expedited trial on three issues of construction was ordered.
1. Whether clause 3 (of the standard P&I Club LOI wording) obliges the party giving the LOI to provide security directly to the cargo owner.
This issue was not in dispute and the obligation to provide security directly to the cargo owner was accepted by all parties.
2. Whether the obligation in clause 3 to provide security to the cargo owner was extinguished as the release of the vessel had already been secured by the owner.
This issue was decided in favour of owner and the obligation was not extinguished even if the vessel was released by reason of security provided by the owner. This analysis would have been different in circumstances where the shipowner without making a demand to charterers to provide security provided the security himself, as no obligation of the charterers to provide security would have accrued before the vessel was released.
3. Whether the undertakings in the LOI was conditional upon delivery of cargo to a specific party.
This issue was decided in favour of the charterers as the wording of the LOI provided the owner to deliver the cargo to a specific party, despite the rider clause in the charterparty only provided the owners to ‘discharge and release’ the cargo subject to receipt of an LOI which did not oblige the owner to deliver to a specific party.
Conclusions :
1.Commencing legal proceedings under an LOI is possible as there has been previous uncertainty whether an LOI which is a document ancillary to fraud could be legally enforceable.
2.Owners must first demand the charterers to provide security to cargo owner in accordance with the LOI, failing which owners have no alternative but to provide security themselves, in order not to prejudice their rights under the LOI to seek charterers to substitute the owner’s security.
3.The standard LOI wording of the P&I Club for delivery of cargo without production of an original bill of lading is not favourably drafted to owner’s benefit and should be amended as the current wording places on the owner an additional and unreasonable obligation to ensure delivery of the cargo to a specific party, failing which the obligations of the charterers under the LOI is not triggered and will leave the owner totally unsecured.
In the standard LOI wording of the P&I Club :
Delete “…we, (insert name of party requesting delivery) hereby request you to deliver the said cargo to “X(name of specific party) or to such party as you believe to be or represent X or to be acting on behalf of X” …
Replace by “…we, (insert name of party requesting delivery) hereby request you to discharge and release said cargo to any party as we instruct…”
4.If the standard LOI wording of the P&I club is used and the above amendments cannot be agreed, the owners must protect themselves and make enquiries about the party requesting delivery whether they are the specific party named in the LOI. Owners should ask the charterers to indentify the intended receivers before discharge and that cargo can be delivered to the party as instructed by charterers, so that the charterers would be estopped from relying on the LOI which places the obligation on the owners.
See attached file : ALCO20120050 Owners must be aware of risks in the LOI format suggested by the International Group of P&I Clubs for delivery of cargo without production of bills of lading.pdf ;INT GROUP A.doc
