We have been asked on several occasions about the commencement of laytime when a vessel is fixed to discharge at a port or berth along the Yangtze river but is delayed at the anchorage of Shanghai.
There was a recent US arbitration to decide whether the vessel could give a valid NOR at Shanghai anchorage despite the charterparty provided for discharge “one safe berth/safe port Yangtze river.”
The owner based their laytime calculations from the time of giving NOR at Shanghai anchorage. The charterers disputed this was unlawful as the vessel had not arrived at berth.
The issue to be decided by the arbitrators was whether the charter was a berth or port charter. If it was a port charter, the owners could validly tender NOR at Shanghai port as no ports were named in the charterparty. The arbitrator decided the mere reference to “a safe berth” does not change a port charter into a berth charter as there were numerous ports along the Yangtze river and as the ports of discharge were not identified, the charter could not have been a berth charter.
If the same issue came before a London arbitration, the award may have been different. In any event the conclusion is that to ensure the legal consequences of a berth charter apply, the names of discharge ports should be identified or named.
The determination of whether a charterparty is a berth or port charterparty may be dependent on the order of words. In “The Finix” (1975 2 LL 415 ) it was held the words ‘one safe berth, London’ was a berth charterparty whereas a different order of words ‘London, one safe berth’ may be interpreted as a port charterparty. The order of words in context of the whole charterparty must be considered to determine which was the correct interpretation.
See attached file : ALCO20110038Laytime-the Yangtze River-Anchorage of Shanghai.pdf
装卸时间计算 – 长江沿岸 – 上海港锚地
最近有不少客户问到相类似的问题，即当船舶到长江沿岸的港口或泊位卸货时，在上海港锚地延迟了，在这种情况下如何起算卸货时间？
最近有个美国的仲裁案，就有关船舶在上海港锚地递交NOR的有效性做出判决，尽管租约卸货规定中记载了”长江沿岸安全泊位/安全港”字样。
船东从上海港锚地递交装卸准备就绪通知书（NOR）时开始计算装卸时间。而承租人则认为这种做法是不合法的，因为船舶并没有到达泊位。
仲裁员需要判断的问题是，该租约是泊位租约还是港口租约。如果是港口租约，由于租约中没有指定的港口，故船东可以在上海港有效的递交装卸准备就绪通知书（NOR）。仲裁员认为仅仅提到”安全泊位”这样的措辞，不能将该租约从港口租约转变为泊位租约，因为长江沿岸港口众多，租约中并没有指定卸货港，因此该租约不会是一个泊位租约。
如果同样的案子交给伦敦仲裁委处理，裁决将会不同。无论在什么情况下，结论都是：为了确保适用泊位租约的法律后果，应该指定或确定卸货港。
判断租约是泊位租约还是港口租约可能取决于语序。在”the Finix”(1975 2 LL 415) 一案中，使用的是”安全泊位，伦敦”，是泊位租约。如果是”伦敦，安全泊位”可能会被解释为港口租约。在判断哪种才是正确解释时，我们需要考虑整个租约中的上下文语序。
详细信息请参阅附件。
