在如今航运市场极其低迷的情况下，租家故意违约将所租船舶提前还给船东的案例时有发生。
White and Crater (Councils) Ltd v McGregor 案例中，基于合同法，法官认为尽管对方明确表示不会再执行合同，但是无辜方依然可以坚持合同继续执行。有两个例外，使原告可以得到的法律赔偿限于损害赔偿：
1） 只有被告同意合作，原告才能继续执行完成合同。
2） 原告继续执行合同已经没有合法权益，只能要求损害赔偿。
(The Oldenfeld)1978 案例中，租家认为在他们拒绝执行合同（还剩6年多的一个期租）后，船东无权要求租家继续履行合同，法院否定了租家这一论点。法院认为期租租家的合作并不是合同继续履行的必要条件，即使租家不给出航次指令，船舶在停泊状态依然可以继续赚取租金。（如果合同不再继续履行）必将使船东处于与祖家一样的窘迫地位，需要在如此恶劣的市场环境下将船租出去。并且船东损失的评估会非常困难。
然而接下来的案例，(The Alaskan Trader)1984 和 (The Dynamic)2003，在类似的情形下，法院却支持了租家的观点，认为如果船东的损失可以得到适当的补偿，就无权要求租家继续履行合同，法院认为坚持要求租家继续履行合同是不合理的。
在最新的案例 (The Aquafaith)2012 中, 仲裁员也给出了对租家有利的裁决，不过法院允许船东提出上诉。Cooke J 法官认为租家不需要提供船东任何东西/行为（例如：不合作），以使船东能继续赚取租金和保持合同有效。另外 Cooke J 法官增加了租家的义务，即租家需要证明即使保留合同继续有效，船东也已经没有了合法权益，并叙述如下：
如果无辜方的损害已经得到了充分的赔偿，那么他就对保留这一合同不再有合法权益了，他坚持履行这一合同就会被认为 “完全不合理” ， “极端不合理” ，或者用我的话来说是 “不正当的” …仲裁员应该扪心自问，该案是不是属于这种情况，即船东的损害已经被充分补偿，船东的行为已经过分，其不应被允许去保留这个合同。
根据这一新的解释，只要船东没有极端不合理，在恶劣市场环境下保留租船合同不是不合理的，租家想要让船东接受其违约是非常困难的。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
Can an owner reject to accept a charterer’s repudiatory breach in redelivering the vessel early?
In the current difficult shipping market, there will be occasions where the charterers repudiate the charterparty and redeliver the vessel to the owners before the time they are entitled to do so.
The case of White and Crater (Councils) Ltd v McGregor on the law of contracts held that an innocent party can insist on keeping the contract alive despite the other party has affirmed he will not perform the contract. Two exceptions were stated which would require the claimant’s legal remedy to be limited to a damages claim :
1) Where the defendant’s co-operation is required in order for the claimant to complete performance of the contract.
2) Where the claimant has no legitimate interest in performing the contract rather than claiming damages.
In (The Oldenfeld) 1978, the Court rejected the charterer’s contention the owners were not entitled to insist the charterers must continue to perform the charterparty when they have repudiated it (with over 6 more years to run). It was said a time charterers’ co-operation was not required to continue to perform the charterparty and if the charterers gave no voyage employment instructions, the vessel would still continue to earn hire when idle. Further, the owners would be placed in the same position as charterers to charter out the vessel in a difficult shipping market and the assessment of owner’s damages would be difficult.
However in subsequent cases (The Alaskan Trader) 1984 and in (The Dynamic) 2003, in similar circumstances the Court held the owners were not entitled to require the charterers to continue to perform the charterparty where damages would be an adequate remedy and where an election to require the charterers to continue to perform the charterparty would be unreasonable.
In the latest case of (The Aquafaith) 2012, the arbitrators gave an award in favour of charterers and the Court allowed the owners to appeal. Cooke J said there was nothing ( ie. no co-operation) required from the charterers in order for the owners to continue to earn hire and hence the charterparty can be kept alive. In addition Cooke J further increased the burden on the charterers to show the owners had no legitimate interest in maintaining the charter and stated :
“The effect of the authorities is that an innocent party will have no legitimate interest in maintaining the contract if damages are an adequate remedy and his insistence on maintaining the contract can be described as “wholly unreasonable” , “extremely unreasonable” or perhaps in my words “perverse” ….The arbitrator should have been asking himself whether or not this was an extreme case of the kind where damages were an adequate remedy and the owner’s conduct was so beyond the pale that they should not be allowed to keep the contract alive.”
Based on this new reinterpretation as long as the owners have not been extremely unreasonable, and keeping the charterparty alive in a difficult shipping market is not unreasonable, it would be difficult for the charterers to require the owners must accept their repudiation.
See attached file : ALCO20120041 Can an owner reject to accept a charterer’s repudiatory breach in redelivering the vessel early.pdf
