“清洁已装船”意味着什么? 船长在签发提单时应注意什么?

(编者按：我司4月21日公众号刊发了题为《一起大豆案引发的思考》的文章。近日Standard保赔协会的理赔专家Elisabeth Birch和Revecca Vasiliou又从船长签发提单时对货物表面状况的检查义务角度对该案进行了深入解读分析，我们在此编译该文章供各位海运朋友参考。)

图片来源网络仅供示意

01 背景

“TaiPrize”轮涉及一个期租租船人与航次租船人之间订立的从巴西到中国的散装大豆货物运输航次租船合同的案件。

货物装上船后，托运人向船长递交了一份提单草本，“托运人对货物的描述”一栏中的货物描述为：

“63,366.150公吨巴西大豆

清洁已装船

运费已预付。”

船长毫无保留地签发了托运人递交的提单，包括在提单正面确认货物:

“在装运港装船，外表状况良好，装船后将运往卸货港……”

“重量、尺寸、质量、数量、情况、内容和价值不详……”

提单并入了海牙规则(HR)，并标明货物装船时“表面状况良好”。

然而，在泉州港卸货时，收货人声称货物受热和发霉，并为此索要担保。船东保赔协会以协会的格式出具了担保函，适用中国法律并受中国法院管辖。船东提出上诉，但两审均败诉，最后被判决须向收货人支付总计1,086,564.70美元的赔款。

之后，船东以和解的方式从期租租船人那里追讨了判决金额的50%。期租租船人反过来又向航次租船人索赔来追讨损失。航次租船合同中并入了海牙规则，该规则没有明确规定期租租船人有权获得赔偿。仲裁员认为航次租船人必须赔偿期租租船人向船东分摊金额的50%，因为:

i.托运人是航次租船人的代理人，已默示保证提单草本中关于货物状况所有陈述的准确性，或已默示同意赔偿期租租船人对任何此类陈述的不准确性所造成的后果。

ii.航次租船人通过托运人作为其代理人，保证货物“在装运港装船，表面状况良好”。

iii.实际上货物装船时并不是“…表面状况良好”。

航次租船人对仲裁结果提起上诉。在上诉中，必须审议的法律问题是:

● （1）在递交给船长的提单草本中“清洁已装船”和“…在装货港装船，表面状况良好”的表述是否相当于托运人或者航次租船人对装前货物表面状况的陈述或者保证？

● （2）在递交给船长的提单草本中“清洁已装船”和“…在装货港装船，表面状况良好”的表述”是否是邀请船长依照他自己对货物表面状况的评估做出事实陈述？

● （3）此外，如果海牙规则已并入航次租船合同或提单中，对于上述第(1)项关于货物状况的声明的后果，是否在租船合同或提单中被并入了默示赔偿条款?

02 海牙规则的立场

在这个案子中，并入航次租船合同和提单中的海牙规则对以下情况作出了明确的区分:

(i)托运人代表程租租船人提供的提单上所载的信息，承运人或者其船长有义务信以为真地来接受。

(ii)关于装运时货物表面状况的陈述。

海牙规则第III 条第3款规定，提单中描述的“为辨认货物所需的主要标志”和“物的包数或件数，或数量，或重量”应为“托运人书面提供的信息”。因此，由托运人提供的此类信息，承运人、船东或船长应信以为真地来接受。

在本案中托运人在提单中所述的信息，即“该货物包含63,366.150公吨巴西大豆”。

该规则还规定提单中应描述“货物的表面状况”，但这不是“托运人以书面形式提供”的信息。鉴于此，这种描述只能由承运人或船东根据装运时的评估做出。在法律上讲，船长不应该仅仅因为有人提供就签署了这样一份清洁的提单。相反，在签署本文件之前，核实货物的表面状况并将其反映在提单上是船长的法定义务。

03 法律讨论

在案件审理中，关于上述问题（1）和（2），Pelling QC法官发现当托运人向船长递交一份载有关于货物表面状况描述的提单以供船长签字时，托运人只不过是邀请承运人或船东，通过作为其代理人的船长就货物的表面状况进行事实描述。这样做，托运人既不保证其描述的准确性，也不保证提单上的描述代表了所装运货物的实际状况。

记录货物表面状况是承运人或者船舶所有人对托运人所负的义务。这种陈述的目的是作为记录承运人或船东关于货物装船时外表状况的证据。收货人和所有以后的提单持有人都信赖如实反映出货物在装船时的表面状况，因为这是胜任且善于观察的船长合理判断得出的。

法官进一步裁定，提单事实上并非不准确，因为船长没有也不可能合理地发现货物缺陷，因为在装船期间他或他的代理人不能合理地查到这些缺陷。

海牙规则第III 条第5款规定，对于“…由托运人书面提供的”信息，托运人应被视为已向承运人提供了保证。这里指的是第 III 条第3款“为辨认货物所需的主要标志……”和“包数或件数，或数量，或重量……”。但是，对于“货物的表面状况”，没有这样的保证。因此，提单上的这些信息完全是船长的评估。

04 默示条款

在这个案例中要考虑的第三个问题是，如果海牙规则被并入租船合同或提单中，航次租船人/托运人是否对承运人有默示赔偿责任。

默示条款只有当有必要赋予合同商业便利之必要或如此明显不言而喻时才会被引用。如果合同中有明确的条款与拟议的默示条款不一致，默示条款根据定义就不能满足这些要求，因为双方已表明这不是他们的协议。因此，如果合同中有明示条款，合同中不得隐含任何与明示条款不一致的默示条款。

法官认为，如果航次租约或提单被解释为存在某项默示规定使得航次承租人有义务赔偿期租承租人，而海牙规则的起草者本可以但决定不就此做明确规定，那么这种解释就是错误的。

该判决明确表示船长代表承运人要根据自己对货物的外观状况的评估来描述事实。在签署由承租人/托运人递交的任何提单之前，核实货物的外表状况也是船长的工作。由期租租船人承担最终责任的判决结果没有任何不公平，不公正，不商业性或不合情理，因为没有虚假陈述，没有证据或发现表明船长是基于所称的虚假陈述采取了行动，而不是无法合理地核实货物状况。

法院裁定，期租租船人无权获得航次租船人的默示赔偿。

结论

此判决重申了检查评估装运货物的表面状况是船长应有的责任。这一原则是国际贸易的基石之一，因为贸易商和银行家依赖于提单中所载事实陈述的准确性。

一般而言，如果在装载时货物实际上是损坏的，那么基于多货物真实状况的争议，则仍可能获得赔偿。

如果货物的缺陷在装船时经合理检验并不能明显地查出来，船长在提单上没有任何批注的签字并不妨碍船东通过确定装货时货物的真实状况来抗辩货物受损索赔。如果船长无法合理地看到货物损坏，其“表面状况良好”的陈述并非是不准确的，如果船长对货物的状况不确定，他应避免接受这一描述。协会建议指派一名独立的检验人来协助调查。

编译自Standard保赔协会

本文仅供参考，如有需要，欢迎随时联系我司。

电话：[phone]

邮箱：[e-mail]

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

审核：王凤景

编辑：宋   雪

原文附后

What 'clean on board’ means and whatshould a master be aware of when presented with a bill of lading?

07 May 2020

PrimindsShipping (HK) Co Ltd v NobleChartering Inc (The 'Tai Prize')

Background

The Tai Prize[1] concerns a matterwhere the defendant head time charterer entered a voyage charter with theclaimant voyage charterer for the carriage of heavy grains, soyabeansin bulkfrom Brazil to China.

After the cargo was loaded onto the ship, the shipper presented a draft bill oflading to the master which under the heading “Shipper’s description of Goods”described the cargo as being:

'63,366.150metric tons Brazilian Soyabeans

Clean on Board

Freight pre-paid.'

The master executed the bill of ladingas presented without any reservations, and this included the followingconfirmation on the face of the bill of lading that the cargo had been:

'SHIPPED atthe Port of Loading in apparent good order and condition on board the Vesselfor carriage to the Port of Discharge…'

'Weight, measure, quality, quantity, condition, contents and value unknown…'

The bill of lading incorporated theHague Rules (HR) and stipulated that the cargo was loaded in 'apparent goodorder and condition.'

However, upon discharging the cargo in Quanzhou, the receivers alleged that thecargo suffered heat and mould damage and requested security for their claim.The ship owner’s P&I Club had issued security in the form of a club LOUthat was subject to Chinese law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the ChineseCourts. The ship owner contested the cargo claim up to the Court of Appeal butlost in both instances and was eventually ordered to pay the receiver a sumequivalent to $1,086,564.70.

Thereafter, the ship owner recovered a 50% contribution of the judgment sumfrom the defendant head time charterer by way of a settlement. The head timecharterer in turn sought to recover this settlement from the claimant voyagecharterer. The voyage charterparty incorporated the Hague Rules which did notcontain an express provision under which the defendant was entitled to anindemnity.

The Arbitrator held that the voyage charterer had to indemnify the head timecharterer for their 50% contribution to the settlement with the ship ownerbecause:

i. the shipper was the voyage charterer’s  agent and had impliedly warranted the accuracy of any statement as to condition containedin the draft bill of lading or had impliedly agreed to indemnify the head timecharterer against the consequences of the inaccuracy of any such statement

ii. the voyage charterer, through the shipper as their agent, hadwarranted that the cargo was 'SHIPPED at the Port of Loading inapparent good order and condition'

iii. the cargo was not in fact shipped: '… in apparent goodorder and condition'.

The voyage chartererappealed and was granted permission to appeal the award. On appeal, the issuesat law which had to be considered were:

1.     Did thewords 'Clean on Board' and  '…SHIPPED at thePort of Loading in apparent good order and condition' in the draftbill of lading when presented to the  master amount to a representation orwarranty by the shippers and / or voyage charterer as to the apparent conditionof the goods observed prior to loading?

2.     Was theinvitation to the master to make a statement of fact in accordance with his ownassessment of the apparent condition of the goods?

3.     Further, ifthe HR had been incorporated into the voyage charterparty or the bill of lading, would an indemnity be implied into the charterparty or bill of lading againstthe consequences of the statement at (1) above regarding the condition of thegoods?

Hague Rules position

In this case, the HR were incorporatedinto both the voyage charterparty and bill of lading and they made a cleardistinction between the position in relation to:

(i)  information that appeared inthe bill of lading that was provided by the shipper on the voyage charterer'sbehalf, which the carrier or its master was obliged to accept at face value

(ii)  representations as to the apparent condition of cargo at shipment.

Art. III rule 3 of the HR provides that the 'leading marks necessary foridentification of the goods' and 'the number of packages or pieces or thequantity or weight' of the goods described on the bill of lading constitutingthe cargo  will be information 'furnished in writing by the shipper'.Hence, such information from to the shipper to a carrier, ship owner or itsmaster is to be accepted at face value.

In the present case this applied to the information that the shipper providedas described in the bill of lading that the cargo consisted of '63,366.150metric tons Brazilian Soyabeans’.

This rule continues to state that the bill of lading should also set out 'theapparent order and condition of the goods' but this is not information that isto be 'furnished in writing by the shipper'. Given this, such an assessment isexclusively made by the carrier or a ship owner (or the master on its behalf)of the goods at the point of shipment. At law, the master should not sign aclean bill just because one is tendered; instead it is his legal obligation toverify the apparent conditions of the goods, and reflect this in the bills oflading before he signs this document.

Legal discussion

On appeal, in relation to issues (1)and (2) above, Judge Pelling QC found that when a shipper tenders a bill oflading for signature to  the master that contains a statement as toapparent condition of the goods, the shipper is doing no more than inviting thecarrier or ship owner, via the master as their  agent, to make a representationof fact as to the apparent condition of the goods on shipment. In so doing, theshipper is neither warranting the accuracy of the represented facts, nor thatthe statement in the bill of lading is a representation as to the actualcondition of the goods shipped.

The obligation to record the apparent order and condition of the goods remainsone that is owed by the carrier or ship owner to the shipper. The purpose ofthe representation is to record the carrier or shipowner's evidence as to theapparent condition of the goods when placed aboard the ship. It is relied on bythe consignee and all subsequent holders of the bill of lading as reflectingthe apparent condition of the goods when placed on board based on thereasonable judgement of a reasonably competent and observant master.

The judge further held that the bill of lading was not inaccurate as a matterof fact because the master did not and could not reasonably have discovered thedefects because they were not reasonably visible to him or his agent duringloading.

Under Art. III rule 5 of the HR, a warranty is deemed to have been supplied bythe shipper to the carrier in respect of information '… furnished in writing bythe shipper'. This refers to Art III rule 3, regarding 'leading marks necessaryfor identification of the goods…' and 'the number of packages or pieces or thequality or weight…'. There is however no such guarantee deemed to be given inrespect of the 'apparent condition of the goods.' Accordingly, this informationin the bill of lading is exclusively an assessment by the master.

Implied Term

The third issue that was considered inthis case was that if the HR were incorporated into the charterparty or thebill of lading whether there was an implied indemnity from the voyage charterer/ shipper to the carrier.

Terms are implied only if it is necessary to give the contract businessefficacy or was so obvious that it goes without saying.  If there is anexpress term in the contract which is inconsistent with the proposed impliedterm, the latter cannot, by definition meet these tests, since the parties havedemonstrated that it is not their agreement. Given this, no term may be impliedinto a contract if it would be inconsistent with an express term.

The judge held it would be wrong to imply a provision into the voyagecharterparty or bill of lading that would make the claimant (the voyagecharterer) liable to indemnify the defendant (the head time charterers) whenthe drafters of the HR could have, but decided not to, provide expressly forsuch a provision. This judgement makes clear that it isthe master (on behalf of the carrier) who is to make a representation of factin accordance with his own assessment of the apparent condition of the cargo.It is also the master's task to verify the apparent condition of the goodsbefore signing any bill of lading presented by the charterer/shipper. There wasnothing unfair, unjust, uncommercial or unconscionable about an outcome thatleft ultimate liability with the defendant head time charterer because therewas no misrepresentation, no evidence or finding that the master had acted onthe alleged misrepresentation rather than being unable to reasonably verify thecondition of the goods.It was held that the head timecharterer was not entitled to an implied indemnity from the voyage charterer.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces that it isthe master who has the sole responsibility for assessing the apparent order andcondition of the goods shipped. This principle is one of the cornerstones ofinternational trade, given the reliance placed by traders and bankers on theaccuracy of statements of fact contained in the bill of lading.

As a general point, in the event that the cargo is in fact loaded in a damagedcondition, an indemnity may still be available if there was a genuine disputeover the condition of the cargo.

In cases where defects in the goods are not apparent on reasonable inspectionat the point of shipment, the master’s signature of the bill of lading withoutany qualification does not prevent the owner from defending a cargo damageclaim by establishing the true condition of the goods upon loading. Where cargodamage is not reasonably visible to the master the representation that it was'in apparent good order and condition' is not inaccurate and the master shouldrefrain from accepting this qualification if he is unsure about the conditionof the cargo. The club would advise that an independent surveyor is appointedto assist.