劳氏救助合同标准格式的使用已经超过一个世纪。其约定了救助服务在“无效果、无报酬”基础上，根据获救财产价值给与成功救助者奖励。我们的特约作者Johnson Chiu比较了LOF与国际救助格式、BIMCO拖航和残骸清除格式以及国际救助联盟格式的差异。他总结，在船员、船舶和环境迫在眉睫的风险下，LOF仍将是重要的一种合同，而技术和通讯的进步也促使考虑其他合同格式，这对处理小事故的船东更具吸引力，这些轻微事故并不会立即将船员、船舶或环境置于风险中。
传统劳氏标准格式“无效果、无报酬”救助合同的使用一直缓慢而稳定地减少。根据劳氏数据，1980年签订了255个LOF合同，但2014年只有37个，创历史新低。在20世纪90年代，LOF合同的平均数量为138.7，而救助奖励的平均价值为获救财产的9.56％（1999年最高为18.8％）。在21世纪00年代，年度平均水平下降到102.6，而救助奖励平均水平则上升到12.99％（2009年最高，为20.4％）。在2018年，这一数字甚至低至53个（2017年为63个），平均奖励也下降到了11.9％。
详细信息请参阅附件。
Challenges to Lloyd’s Open Form Salvage Contract – from a Shipowner’s Perspective
The Lloyd’s Open Form salvage contract (LOF) has been in use for more than a century. It provides for salvage services on a “no cure-no pay” basis with an award for success based on the values of the property saved. Our guest author, Johnson Chiu, compares the LOF to national salvage forms, BIMCO forms for towage and wreck removal and ISU forms. He concludes that the LOF will remain an important contract when the crew, the ship and the environment are in imminent peril yet technology and communication advances make consideration of other contracts attractive to shipowners for minor casualties that do not immediately put the crew, vessel or environment at risk. We thank Mr. Chiu for his contribution to Insight and remind our readers that the author’s views are his own.
The use of the traditional Lloyd’s Open Form “No Cure-No Pay” salvage contract has been declining slowly but steadily. According to Lloyds Statistics, there were 255 LOF contracts awarded in 1980 but only 37, the record low, in 2014. In the 1990s, the average number of LOF contracts was 138.7, and the average value of an award was 9.56% of the property salved (the highest was 18.8% in 1999). In the 2000s, the annual average declined to 102.6 while the average award went up to 12.99% (the highest was 20.4% in 2009). In 2018, the number went even lower to 53 (63 in 2017) and the average award also decreased to 11.9%.
See attached file: Challenges to Lloyd’s Open Form Salvage Contract – from a Shipowner’s Perspective.pdf
