下文将会表述当承租人停止支付租金时船东应留意的几个关键问题。注意：实际中遇到停付租金情况时请仍旧向协会寻求FDD保单下的建议和帮助。
支付租金属于合同义务，因此首先要注意的问题就是租金是否已逾期未付。船东应当查看以下几个日期来确认是否逾期：租金应付日期午夜12点；应支付租金之时船舶是否处于停租状态；若应付租金日期是在周末，那么要注意该周末之前的最后一个工作日。另外也有可能租金是按时支付了但少于船东认为应付的金额。承租人可能会主张是因为从租金中扣除了诚实且合理的减除项，比如停租和租约明文赋予的索赔项可以在租金中扣除之权利。
若已经确认有未付到期租金之情况存在，这也并不当然地意味着承租人的停付租金行为能从法律上构成实质性违约。租约的成立很少被认为是以租金的支付为条件，船东可能无权仅因承租人未付到期租金而宣告租约解除。船东须要证明承租人有 “表明不受租约约束之意图” ，但这往往很难证明。在仅有未付到期租金之情况下，船东需要小心其自身认为承租人根本违约而宣告租约解除的行为。因为此种行为可能本身就构成船东方的实质违约，反过来给了承租人权利来决定是否接受船东宣告租约解除，并可以要求损害赔偿。
因此，租约合同下可能会明文赋予船东在到期租金未付时的救济方式，比如中止履行任何或全部义务的权利，以及撤船的权利。
BIMCO未按时支付租金条款中明文赋予了船东从应付租金之日午夜12点起中止履行任何或全部义务的权利，并且不要求船东提前发出正式的通知，仅仅告知承租人此种情况即可。而NYPE 1993 标准合同中同样规定了类似的权利，但须在宽限期结束之后才可以行使。对于收货方来说，船东可能是首先被认为是有责任的，但上述两种条款也都能使船东从承租人处获得因中止履行义务而带来的损失和额外费用之赔偿。
反技术性取巧条款之通知，这往往是租约合同所要求的撤船这一合同权利的先决条件。这样的通知可能以不同的形式、不同的要求出现。船东需要注意的是对承租人威胁撤船的通知不是反技术性取巧条款下的有效通知。适当的通知形式应要求承租人在合同规定的期限内支付租金，以及明确地表示若承租人未有符合通知之行为则船舶将被撤回。如果船东没能在合理期限内发出此反技术性取巧条款之通知，那么他可能会被认为已放弃了此权利，也因此丧失了之后的撤船权利。
如果承租人仍未按照反技术性取巧条款通知来支付租金，那么船东此时可能发出撤船的通知。撤船通知将会在承租人收到通知之时产生解除租船合同的效力。在租约中，若条文表述为赋予船东因 “任何违约” 而撤船的权利，在法律上这被认为只适用于实质性违约的情况。如上文所述，仅仅是未按时支付租金并不构成实质违约。若租约中明文规定了在未按时支付租金时船东有权撤船，那么船东可以依赖此条款进行撤船。
以上由 ANDREW LIU & CO.,LTD 编译，应以英文为准！
详细信息请参阅附件。
A Simple Guide to Owners when Charterers Stop Paying Hire
This article provides some of the key issues to be kept in mind when charterers are in default of stop paying hire. ATTENTION: Please seek advice from the Club under FDD cover.
As payment of hire is a contractual obligation, the first question to be looked at is whether the hire is due and outstanding. Owners should check the dates with following key words: midnight on the due date for payment; off-hire when payment is due; last working day before weekend if due on weekend; etc. The hire may be paid but in a lesser amount than owner thought it would be. Charterers may argue that they have made a bona fide and reasonable deduction from hire such as off-hire and express right in charterparty to deduct agreed claims.
If there exists non-payment of hire, it does naturally mean such conduct of charterer could be legally considered as a repudiatory breach of charter. Payment of hire is rarely a condition of charter, thus owners may not be entitled to bring the charter to an end. It is necessary for the owners to show that charterers have “evinced an intention not to be bound by the terms of the charter” , which is actually very difficult to prove. Owners should beware of holding charterers in repudiatory breach and declaring the charter at an end, when non-payment of hire can be shown only. Such conduct may constitute a repudiatory breach on the owners’ side, which offer the option to charterer to accept such declaring in order to bring the charter to an end and claim damages for their losses.
Thus, the charterparty may give owners express remedies when hire is not paid, such as the right to withhold services and the right to withdraw.
The BIMCO Non-Payment of Hire Clause expressly gives owners the right to suspend services from the midnight on the due date for hire, without requirement of formal notice in advance but just advise to charterers of withholding. The NYPE 1993 form also gives a similar right but only after expiry of a grace period. It is probable that owners would be liable to consignees in the first instance, though both clauses above provide that charterers are to indemnify owners for such liability as a result of withholding.
Anti-technicality notices is possibly required by the charterparty, the giving of which is a condition to the contractual right to withdraw. Such notices could be in various forms with different requirements. Owners need to pay attention that a notice threatening withdrawals will not be an effective one. The proper form is to require payment within contractual period in the charter and clearly state that the vessel WILL be withdrawn if the notice is not complied with. If an owner who failed to serve an anti-technicality notice in a reasonable time period, he may be held to have waived the right of anti-technicality and thus lose the right to withdraw.
If charterers still do not pay the hire under the terms of the anti-technicality notice, then it is time for owners to give notice of withdrawal. Such notice that the vessel has been withdrawn brings the charter to a compete end and would have its effects when received by charterers. In the charterparty, the term which gives owners the right to withdraw for “any breach” of charter is legally considered as only applicable to repudiatory breached of the charterparty. Mere non-payment of hire is not a repudiatory breach as mentioned above. The right to withdraw in non-payment of hire will not exist unless it is expressly said in the charterparty.
See attached file : ALCO20120023A Simple Guide to Owners when Charterers Stop Paying Hire.pdf
