在航運實務中，經常碰到裝卸港有吃水限制的問題。很多人包括船長，在面臨這些問題的時候，都不十分確定，到底如何才能最大程度地保護出租人的利益。如果宣多了，可能導致超吃水；宣少了，少收運費；似乎很難做到完美。鑑於此，筆者認為有必要談談這方面的問題。
現在先從公司其中一條好望角型船的配載圖說起；當然不同船型，尤其是小船，配載會複雜得多，尤其是裝件雜貨。這方面應該都有專門的碼頭船長去監督，協助船方。因此，得針對特定的情況才能分析。
下圖為船到東澳的DBCT裝煤炭的預配圖，在該配載圖中包含了一些基本信息，至少在筆者看來是重要的。貨物的積載因素，對於密度相對較小，滿艙不滿載的貨物，所選取的積載因素（SF-Stowage Factor）直接關係到能裝的貨量多少問題，因此非常重要。其次，對於由吃水限制的港口而言，配載圖所對應的港口水密度選擇，也很關鍵。密度越大，相同吃水情況下，所排出的水重量越大，因此對應能裝的貨物越多。而水密度越小，則相同貨量情況下，吃水越大。因此如果卸港有吃水限制，一定要考慮到卸港當地的水密度問題。
這份配載圖，也反映了一些別的重要信息，總貨量，離港吃水，是否考慮中拱中垂影響，每個艙的具體貨量及裝貨的百分比，剪力彎矩，船存燃油，船舶常數，排不出去的壓載水等等。這些都可以初步判斷配載圖是否存在問題；如果在期租合同下，壓載水或船舶常數太大，很有可能會被索賠。
為確保安全，該輪的船長在發此配載圖給發貨人，承租人，代理及所有相關方的同時，加了如下說明。
GOOD DAY DEAR:
PLS KINDLY FIND ATTACHMENT WITH C H S WORLD - PRE-STOWAGE PLAN/ LOADING SEQUENCE.
CARGO DECLARED IN PRE-STOW PLAN: 171332MT
H1 16300/ H2 19900/ H3 20000/ H4 18000/ H5 19632/ H6 20000/ H7 20000/ 19900/ H917600 MT
NOTE:
1.THIS PRE-STOW PLAN MAY BE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS PER ACTUAL S.F/SAGGING CONDITION/MSD;
2.VSL IS ALWAYS TO max cargo intake AS APLICABLE.
雖然前面船長declared了貨量，但是加了後面標黃色的批註，這樣就可以很好地免除了船長的責任問題。因為船長已經聲明了，所宣的貨量受貨物實際的積載因素，船舶中垂及最大離港吃水等影響，加了這個「Subject to」足以表明對前面所宣的貨物沒有約束力。如果害怕宣載宣多了導致裝不了貨，使用了該措辭就可以很好地避免此責任。
同時，船長還聲明如可行總是裝最大貨量。如果發貨人沒有提供足夠的貨物，如Evens勳爵在The 「Arctic Trader」案中，認為第三方發貨人應該被認為是承租人的代理人，因此承租人將面臨被索賠的風險。
看似簡單的配載圖，其實包含了很多內容。這些信息看似無關緊要，但其實都是非常重要的參考。
接下來就先來看看Louis Dreyfus & Cie. v. Parnaso Cia.Naviera,S.A.(The 「Dominator」[1960] Lloyd’s 1 Rep.117)案。
一、基本案情
1957年11月4日，ParnasoCia.Naviera, S.A.（以下簡稱「出租人」）與Louis Dreyfus & Cie. （以下簡稱「承租人」）籤訂了一份Gencon格式的程租合同。該份租船合同的條款很少，其中第一條條款規定，該巴拿馬型Dominator輪（以下簡稱「該輪」）從La Pallice裝運小麥到Karachi卸。條款內容如下：
Vessel shall load a full and complete cargo of not more than 10450 tons and not less than 8550 tons wheat in bulk,quantity in owners' option, to be declared by the master in writing on commencement of loading . . . and being so loaded the vessel shall proceed to Karachi . . .
運費是普通的條款，按所載運的貨量噸位來計算。
在抵達裝港LaPallice的時候，該輪的船長於11月23日發出宣載通知書，聲稱是根據租船合同第1條發出的書面聲明。該通知書的具體內容如下：
I the master . . . of the steamer Dominator I have notify you that I shall require 300 tons wheat in bags for loading and the approximative (sic) cargo to the holds will be as follows:
No.1 hold 1600 long tons.
2 hold 3000 do.
3 hold 2000 do.
4 hold 2150 do.
5 hold 1650 do.
TOTAL: 10,400 tons.
隨後由該輪的Roussos船長籤署，該船長為希臘人。法官事後認為該宣載通知書所使用的英語略有不完美，但不影響整體理解。
該輪開始裝載，但在裝載時，航行時間屆時已經到冬季，並且證明無法運載全部10,400噸，實際上該輪總共裝了10,069噸，比宣載短少了331噸。但根據船長的宣載通知，承租人已經將貨物運到La Pallice準備好裝貨，並且由於該輪無法裝載331噸，導致產生了將這部分貨物運送到其他地方的費用，這些額外費用為155英鎊，承租人於是從運費中扣除此費用。
二、爭議焦點
承租人認為出租人應對貨物的損失或損壞負責，或僅在貨物的不當或疏忽裝載導致的損失，損壞或延誤（貨物裝載在船長的指示下）的情況下延遲交付貨物或個人需要對出租人或其管理人員進行盡職調查，以使船舶在各方面都適航，並確保船舶得到適當的人員配備和供應，或此損失是由出租人或其管理人員的個人行為或違約所造成的。
出租人認為即使船長或船員或其他出租人或僱主僱用的船上其他人員因疏忽或違約而出現任何其他原因，出租人也不承擔任何其他原因造成的損失或損害或延誤，本條款在裝載或開始航行時或任何時候均不表明出租人需對此負責或船舶構成不適航。
因此需要確定的問題是，在本案情況下，承租人是否有權通過抵消方式或通過索賠損失，從出租人那裡追償違約，以這種方式產生的總和。這取決於兩個解釋問題：
（1）該條款的真正解釋；和
（2）如果贊成承租人對此條款的解釋，就會出現金康合同中出租人責任條款的解釋問題。
三、法官判決
商事法院的Diplock法官（當時是）在經過分析後，認為：
（1）船長的聲明確實具有合同效力，船長在規定的限制範圍內（「不超過10,450噸，不少於8550噸」）宣布的任何數量為了租船合同的目的應被視為船舶的全部和完整的貨物。
基於MacKinnon法官在Chandris v. Louis Dreyfus＆Co.，（1934）50 Ll.L.Rep.141案中的格言的爭辯被拒絕。
Held, (1) that the master's declaration did have a contractual effect and whatever quantity the master declared within the specified limits ("not more than 10,450 tons and not less than 8550 tons") was to be deemed a full and complete cargo for the purposes of the charter.
-Argument based on dictum of MacKinnon, J., in Chandris v. Louis Dreyfus & Co., (1934) 50 Ll.L.Rep.141, rejected.
（2）「近似」沒有明確的容許量限度，因此應被解釋為指最低限度規則導入這種合同的容許量限度；因此該聲明是確定要裝載的數量的有效聲明。
-Held, (2) that"approximative" had no defined limits of tolerance, and was to be construed, accordingly, as referring to those limits of tolerance which the deminimis rule imported into contracts of that kind; and that therefore the declaration was a valid declaration fixing the quantity to be loaded.
（3）例外條款第二段中的「no loss or damage or delay」一詞具有廣泛的含義，或者可以具有較窄的含義，即在第一段中使用同一短語段；因此存在不明確之處，為了解決這種含糊不清的問題，法院有權提及該條款的刪除部分；刪除的部分明文處理，只處理貨物損壞；因此，例外條款僅限於貨物的損失或損壞或貨物延遲交付的責任，並且不包括由於出租人未能裝載合同的數量而使承租人所承受的損失。法官作出了對承租人有利的判例。
-Held, (3) that the words"no loss or damage or delay" in the second paragraph of the exceptions clause were capable of a wide meaning, or alternatively were capable of the narrower meaning with which the same phrase was used in the first paragraph;that, accordingly, there was an ambiguity, and, in order to resolve that ambiguity, the Court was entitled to refer to the deleted portion of the clause; that that deleted portion dealt plainly, and dealt only, with damage to the goods; and that, therefore, the exceptions clause was limited to liability for loss of, or damage to, the goods or delay in delivery of the goods, and it did not cover loss sustained by the charterers owing to the shipowners' failure to load the contract quantity of goods-Judgment for plaintiffs.
出租人不服判決，上訴。
上訴法院的Sellers勳爵認為，船長是希臘人，當他說「近似」時，認為他在數量方面與代理人在11月8日的信中所說的數量相同，即：預計船舶將裝約10,400噸的貨物。
Sellers勳爵認為331噸短貨，對比宣載通知中的10,400噸貨物，短貨約3％，因此履行了運輸約10,400噸的義務：見Morris v.Levison，（1876）1 C.P.D. 155，The Resolven，（1892）9 T.L.R. 75案。由於缺乏關於此事的貿易證據，Sellers勳爵認為這種貨物在合理的商業偏差量範圍內。
I would regard 331 tons deficiency in a cargo of10,400 tons, a deficiency of just over 3 percent., as fulfilling the obligation to ship about 10,400 tons: see Morris v. Levison, (1876) 1 C.P.D. 155, and The Resolven, (1892) 9T.L.R. 75. In the absence of any trade evidence on the matter, it is, in my opinion, within a reasonable commercial margin in respect of such a cargo.
承租人的代表律師極力爭辯說，船長在裝貨開始時的聲明可能是，並且是準確的，並且陳述「大約」不符合要求。然而，宣載未經投訴即被接受，Sellers勳爵認為任何一方在評估其權利和義務時都不應該理解為「approximative」不在那裡。它在範圍上仍然是一個數量比在租船合同中的範圍窄得多的聲明。
Mr. MacCrindle argued strenuously that a declaration by the master at the commencement of loading could be, and was intended to be, precise, and to state "about" was not in accordance with the requirement. The declaration was, however, accepted without complaint, and I do not think that it should be read by either party in assessing their rights and obligations as if "approximative" was notthere. It is still a statement of quantity much narrower in its latitudes than the wide range in the charter-party.
Sellers勳爵認為這足以判定本案有利於出租人。但出租人的代表律師Mocatta邀請法官進一步說，聲明沒有承租人指稱的效果，並由博學的法官判定，無論船長在租船合同規定的範圍內聲明的任何數量是否被視為為租船合同的目的而成為全面完整的貨物。他認為，船長的這種聲明不能被解釋為可以改變租船合同下的合同責任，並且只是為了方便他們對租船人的一個暗示，讓他們更仔細地了解所需的預期貨物在8,550到10,450噸的非常廣泛的範圍內。另一種提議是，宣載的數量成為船舶可以要求的最大數量，以取代最大租船合同的貨量10,450噸。由於承租人除聲明外，不僅有義務，而且有權裝載最多10,450噸的全部完整的貨物，如果船長能夠宣載較低的數量，無論船舶是否滿載，他都會受到約束，如果租船合同不同，則可能會剝奪承租人如果願意的話可以裝滿全部貨物的權利。如果宣布的數量被認為是全部和完整的貨物，那麼再說，「and there load a full and complete cargo.」就沒有意義。
That is sufficient to decide this case in favour of the appellants. But Mr. Mocatta invited us to go further and to hold that the declaration had not the effect alleged by the charterers, and found by thelearned Judge, that whatever quantity the master declared within the limits specified in the charter-party was to be deemed to be a full and complete cargo for the purposes of the charter-party. He submitted that such a declaration by the master could not be interpreted so as to alter the contractual liability under the charter-party, and was merely an intimation to the charterers as a matter of convenience to give them a closer idea of the anticipated cargo required within the very wide limits of 8550 to 10,450 tons. The alternative submission was that the declared quantity became the maximum quantity the ship could demand in substitution for the charter-party maximum of 10,450 tons. As the charterers were, apart from the declaration, not only obliged but entitled to load a full and complete cargo up to 10,450 tons, if the master was able to declare a lower quantity which became binding whether the ship were fully loaded or not, he could, in variance of the charter-party, deprive the charterers of their right to load a full cargo if they wished to do so. If the declared quantity was to be deemed a full and complete cargo, then, it was said,no meaning remains in the words "and there load a full and complete cargo."
Sellers勳爵認為這些都是實質性的爭論，可能令人驚訝的是，承租人準備爭辯說，「船東的數量選擇，由船長在裝貨開始時以書面形式宣布」確實會大幅侵害，如果沒有它，一直是他們的權利。
These are substantial arguments, and it is perhaps surprising that charterers are prepared to contend that the phrase"quantity in owners' option, to be declared by the master in writing on commencement of loading" does make drastic in roads on what would, without it, have been their rights.
Sellers勳爵認為如果沒有聲明，租船合約方將要求承租人裝載出租人並在規定的限度內接受「全面和完整的貨物」，正如博學的法官所述，如果這是全部，則各方的義務將會在船舶滿載之前，出租人保證最低容量為8,550噸，並且承租人有義務提供最多10,450噸的全部完整貨物（如果船舶能夠裝載這麼多），但是沒有義務提供更多的貨物，即使船上仍然有能力採取更多措施：請參閱Carlton Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Castle Mail Packets Company,Ltd., (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 173案和Jardine, Matheson &Co. v. Clyde Shipping Company, [1910] 1 K.B. 627案。
Without the declaration, the charter-party would require the charterers to load and the shipowners to receive a "full and completecargo" within the limits specified, and, as the learned Judge states, if that were all, the obligation of the parties would have been that the owners warranted a minimum capacity of 8550 tons before the vessel was fully loaded,and the charterers were under an obligation to provide a full and complete cargo up to 10,450 tons (if the vessel were capable of holding so much), but under no obligation to provide more even if there remained capacity in the ship to take more: see Carlton Steamship Company, Ltd. v. Castle Mail PacketsCompany, Ltd., (1897) 2 Com. Cas. 173; and Jardine, Matheson & Co. v. ClydeShipping Company, [1910] 1 K.B. 627.
儘管出租人的代表律師Mocatta先生提交了這份文件，並且他依賴Chandris v.Louis Dreyfus＆Co.（1934）50 Ll.L.Rep.141案的一位經驗豐富的商業法官MacKinnon的意見，據博學的法官所引用，Sellers勳爵得出結論認為，一旦聲明適當，其中規定的數量就代替了租船合同規定的最大和最小數量範圍，並確定了裝載的數量。
Notwithstanding the force of Mr. Mocatta's submission,and the reliance he placed on the observations of a very experienced CommercialJudge, Mr. Justice MacKinnon, in Chandris v. Louis Dreyfus & Co., (1934) 50Ll.L.Rep. 141, cited by the learned Judge, I have come to the conclusion that,once the declaration was properly made, the quantity stated therein became substituted for the wide range of maximum and minimum quantities stipulated in the charter-party and established the quantity to be loaded.
Sellers勳爵他懷疑這樣一個數量是否被認為是全面和完整的貨物是正確的還是必要的，儘管這可能通常有此效果。它成為發貨人需要裝載的最大數量，但Sellers勳爵傾向於認為，在這種情況下並且在此聲明中，如果船舶沒有滿載10,400噸，那麼承租人可能要求接受類似的，比這個數量高3％，這取決於該條款規定船舶是否只需要裝宣載的數量即可完成完全和全部的貨物，也就是說，出租人不可能依賴其聲明的最低數量。
I doubt whether it is right or necessary to say that such a quantity is deemed to be a full and complete cargo, although that might often be the effect. It becomes the maximum which the shipper is required to load, but I am inclined to think that, in this case and with this declaration,if the vessel had not been fully laden with 10,400 tons, the charterers could have required the acceptance of a similar margin, say 3 percent., above that quantity, relying on the provision that she was to take a full and complete cargo limited only by the declared quantity, that is, the shipowners could not have relied on the minimum quantity of his declaration.
Sellers勳爵認為乍看起來，承租人在租船合同中給予或接受似乎不太可能，因為這對出租人來說對比出租人似乎更不利於託運人。Sellers勳爵認為他一度懷疑這種選擇是否可以使出租人獲得利益，但如果達到了他的目的，他可以通過船長聲明減少貨物而不是全部和完整的貨物，從而在裝港加快速遣他的船舶，或者留下空間以便添加便宜的燃油和物料，例如，隨後裝載租船合同的貨物。行使選擇權，除非是精確計算多少貨物將使船舶裝到載重線下，否則會出現這種情況，看起來損害了承租人的利益，作為船長（通常可能是貨物的裝載一個不確定的因素）往往傾向規定比滿載貨物更少，在安全方面來對抗已經發生的這種索賠。承租人的利益是他被告知需要運送的貨物的確切數量，並且可以以最小的費用作出相應的安排，因為他不會提供過剩的貨物。毫無疑問，本案中的船長有意在安全方面，但是在船舶不久之前變為冬季載重線時，錯誤地以夏季載重線來計算。事情發生的時候，該輪只用了所規定的最低數額，Sellers勳爵認為覺得它應該被如此解釋。
At first sight, it seems an unlikely option for acharterer to grant or accept in the charter-party, as it would appear more of adetriment to the shipper than a benefit to the shipowner. I felt doubt, at onetime, whether the option could benefit the shipowner to whom it was given, but if it served his purpose he could by the declaration of the master take less cargo than a full and complete cargo and thereby speed the dispatch of his ship from the loading port, or leave room for the intake of cheap bunkers and stores, for instance, subsequently to loading the charter-party cargo. The exercise of the option, unless it is a precise calculation of what cargo will bring the vessel down to her load line, would operate, it would seem, to the prejudice of the charterer, as the master (to whom the stowage of a cargo may often be an uncertain factor) would tend to stipulate for less than a full cargo to be on the safe side against such a claim as has arisen here. The benefit to the charterer, it is said, is that he is informed of the precise amount of cargo he will be required to ship, and can make arrangements accordingly, with the minimum of expense, as he would not provide surplus cargo. The master in the present case no doubt intended to be on the safe sidebut erred in calculating on a summer load line when the ship had shortly before changed to winter marks. As it happened, the ship just took the minimum of the amount he stipulated as I have felt it ought to be interpreted.
在商事法院的Diplock法官判決時，出租人也依靠在租船合同中的例外條款。Sellers勳爵認為這一點是針對出租人他們的，而且這一調查結果可能會受到上訴，但法院對該聲明的看法變得沒有必要，而且這一說法在上訴法院沒有爭論。最終，Sellers勳爵允許出租人上訴，拒絕了博學的法官的判決。
I would allow the appeal and refuse the declarations which the learned Judge gave.
上訴院的Ormerod勳爵也允許這個上訴。關於解釋租船合同第一條款的問題，Ormerod勳爵他完全同意Sellers勳爵所表達的觀點，並且什麼觀點都不添加。只是在船長的聲明上加上幾句話，因為與這個問題上的博學的法官意見不同。
博學的法官認為，把船長的聲明解釋為「符合合同條款，如果這樣的解釋對我是開放」是正確的。他認為，這種聲明是聲稱在容許量限度範圍內宣布確實數量在最低限度規則範圍內的聲明。然後他得出結論，由於「approximative」這個詞是沒有任何明確的容許量限度的詞，因此它應該被解釋為只涉及這種容許量，因此認為通知是一個很好的通知。根據這一租船合同，是否允許比博學的法官提出的容許量限度更大的聲明是一個很好的聲明，Ormerod勳爵認為這是一個他覺得有些疑問的問題。但是承租人接受了這個聲明是一個很好的聲明，因此Ormerod勳爵在這個基礎上來處理這個問題。
Ormerod勳爵覺得他難以接受博學的法官的結論，即「approximative」一詞給雙方帶來的容許量度不會超過最低限度規則。這意味著無論如何這個詞都被插入到聲明中。確實，船長是希臘人，他對「近似」一詞的使用表明他缺乏駕馭英語的能力。但是，這似乎沒有足夠的理由使面前的文件語言失效。Ormerod勳爵認為，「近似」是指比博學的法官所認為的容許量更多的東西。還有多少要看背景情況。該船無法裝載通知中提到的10,400噸的331噸，相差3.18％。在本案的情況下，Ormerod勳爵認為，這是在聲明中引入的「近似」一詞的容許量範圍內。因此，允許上訴。
I find it difficult to accept the conclusion of the learned Judge that the word "approximative" gives to the parties no more tolerance than would the de minimis rule. To do so means that the word was inserted into the declaration for no purpose whatsoever. It is true that the master of the ship was Greek, and his use of the word "approximative"is some indication of his lack of command of English. But that does not seem tobe sufficient reason for failing to give effect to the language of the documentas it is before us. In my judgment, "approximative" refers to something more than the tolerance suggested by the learned Judge. How much more depends on the surrounding circumstances. The ship was unable to load the10,400 tons referred to in the notice by 331 tons, which is a difference of 3.18 percent. In the circumstances of this case, this comes, in my judgment,within the tolerance imported into the declaration by the word"approximative."
I would therefore allow the appeal on this ground.
上訴院的Harman勳爵認為，他毫不懷疑法官正確地解釋了租船合同的措辭，而且所有這些都構成合同的一部分，也就是說，選項短語不僅僅包括「期望的措辭」，在Morris v. Levison, (1876) 1 C.P.D.155案中，第160段中被駁回。那麼這些措辭當然是根據背景環境來看，意味著什麼？考慮到上訴委員會所引用的權威，Carlton案和Jardine，Matheson案，引用這一選項之前的詞的含義是毫無疑問的。它們是出租人的保證，不得少於8,550噸。如果船舶需要這麼多，但沒有更多，即使她可以裝載更多，他們給予託運人裝載到更高數字的權利。因此，「fulland complete cargo」的主要含義在國際上得以實現。以下選項是出租人代理人（船長）通過聲明數量來進一步限制相同權利的選項。Harman勳爵認為，這個聲明不需要做出，這確實是一種選擇。但是，如果行使選擇權當然是在文件規定的範圍內，則船長宣布的數字必須寫入合同，並且在各方之間構成全部和完整的貨物。Harman勳爵認為租約起草並不高雅。最好用「噸數不超過10,400噸或不少於8550噸」這樣的詞語表達，因為船長應在裝貨開始前以書面形式聲明，將其視為全部和完整的貨物。不過，Harman勳爵認為其含義是相當清楚的。
I agree. I do not feel any doubt that the Judge rightly construed the words of the charter-party, and that all of them form part of the contract, that is to say, that the option phrase does not consistmerely of "words of expectation," the phrase rejected in Morris v.Levison, (1876) 1 C.P.D. 155,at p. 160. What then do these words, regarded of course in the light of the surrounding circumstances, mean? The meaning of the words preceding there ference to the option is not in doubt, having regard to the authorities, the Carlton case, sup., and the Jardine, Matheson case, sup., cited by my Lord. They are a warranty by the owners that not less than 8550 tons shall be carried. They give the shipper the right to load up to the higher figure, if the vessel will take so much, but no more, even though she could carry more. Thus an inroad is made on the primary meaning of "full and complete cargo." The option that follows is anoption to the owners by their agent, the master, to put a further limit on this same right by declaring the quantity. This declaration need not, in my judgment, be made. It is truly an option. But if the option be exercised, of course within the limits set by the document, then the figure declared by the master must be read into the contract, and will constitute, as between the parties, afull and complete cargo. The drafting is not elegant. It would be better expressed by some such words as "such tonnage not more than about 10,400 tons, nor less than about 8550 tons, as the master shall in writing declare before loading starts, this to be treated as a full and complete cargo." I think, however, the meaning is tolerably clear.
下一個問題是通知的含義。法官認為，選擇權中的「數量」必須被解釋為「確切數量」，必須使通知中的措辭符合要求，並且數量應精確地理解為10,400噸，儘管該詞語「近似」。因此，法官覺得必須給後者一個不自然的含義，並把它當作對這種微小的差異的引用，正如在微量學說的理論中暗示的那樣。Harman勳爵認為對他自己而言，認為沒有必要拋棄適用於解釋所有文件的基本原則，即如果可能的話，為每個詞賦予其自然含義。他認為「近似」必須被賦予其「約」或「更多或更少」的自然含義，並且不論適用於該表達的任何容許度都不低於10,400噸的合同的一部分。當然，這是雙向的。如果船可能運載更多，那麼託運人本可以要求超額的部分；如果更少（事實證明是這種情況），那麼他們必須同意少些。雙方似乎都認為這個數量可以用「10,400或多或少」這樣的詞語來說明，Harman勳爵認為這是正確的。但是，如果這是錯誤的，那麼承租人應當反對，並堅持更準確的定義。
The next question is of the meaning of the notice. The Judge thought that "quantity" in the option must be construed as"exact quantity", that ut res magis valeat the words in the notice must be made to comply, and that the quantity should be read as 10,400 tons precisely, notwithstanding the word "approximative." He therefore felt bound to give the latter word an unnatural meaning, and treat it as are ference to such trifling differences as would be implied in its absence under the doctrine of de minimis. For myself I see no necessity to desert the cardinal principle applicable to theconstruction of all documents, namely, to give its natural meaning to every word, if possible. I think "approximative" must be given its natural meaning of "about" or "more or less", and that whatever tolerance is appropriate to that expression becomes no less a part of the contract than the reference to 10,400. This, of course, works both ways. If the ship could have carried more, then the shippers could have asked for the excess; if less (as proved to be the case) then they must be content with less.Both sides appear to have assumed that the quantity can be well declared bysuch words as "10,400 more or less", and I think that is right. But,if it is wrong, the charterers should have objected at the time and insisted ona more exact definition.
或者，該選擇權從來沒有被執行過，在那種情況下，Harman勳爵認為沒有違約，因為實際上裝滿了全部的完整貨物。仍然要考慮承載能力的不足，大約3.18％，該數量是否仍在指定的容差範圍內。 Harman勳爵認為它確實如此。這不是一個很大的差別，因為這會大大地改變義務，使它成為不同的討價還價。Harman勳爵得出結論，出租人沒有違約。因此，出租人上訴被允許。承租人繼續上訴至貴族院被拒絕。
Alternatively, the option was never exercised at all,and in that case there was no breach, because a full and complete cargo was infact loaded.
It remains to consider whether the deficiency incarrying capacity, some 3.18 percent., leaves the quantity within the tolerance indicated. I think that it does. It is not so great a difference as alters the obligation so substantially as to make it a different bargain. I would conclude that there was no breach of contract.
The appeal was, accordingly, allowed. Judgment was entered for the appellants on the claim and counterclaim, with costs in the Court of Appeal and below. Leave to the respondents to appeal to the House ofLords was refused.
本案中，雖然船長的宣載聲明並不是十分完美，但是正因為加了「approximative」一詞，縱然最根本的原因是船長因為沒有考慮到冬季載重線的變化導致了少裝貨，但是上訴院的法官們認為，少裝貨的量在偏差容許的範圍內。Harman勳爵更是明確表示，「approximative」一詞必須被賦予其「約」或「更多或更少」的自然含義，並且不論適用於該表達的任何容許度都不低於10,400噸的合同的一部分。雙方似乎都認為這個數量可以用「10,400或多或少」這樣的詞語來說明，Harman勳爵認為這是正確的。但是，如果這是錯誤的，那麼承租人應當反對，並堅持更準確的定義。也就是說，如果承租人不同意，需要更準確的宣載量，那麼承租人必須在當時就反對，要求船長修改宣載通知書。同理，和之前文章提到的，合同條款中WOG的問題，如果承租人要求出租人對條款所描述作出保證，那麼必須在籤約之前就反對，要求刪去WOG這一可免除出租人責任的措辭。
因此，筆者建議，船長在提供這些預配圖的時候，儘量使用模糊的語言，應該如本案中船長所陳述的那樣，在貨量之前加上「approximative」。同時繼續作類似如下的批註：Final cargo quantity always subject to cargo actual stowage factor, vessel’s SF/BMallowance, MSD and Master’s final adjustment. And the vessel always wish to load max cargo if applicable.
與這個「approximative」類似的，在CargoShips 『El-Yam』 Ltd v Invotra NV [1958] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.39案中，也解釋了「about」這個詞的含義。商事法院的Devlin法官在第52頁判決書中說到：
If I had to determine whether the margin of 1.2 percent. was within the phrase "about", it might be a point on the evidence that I have had which would require some careful consideration. Prima facie, I must say that I should have thought it was a small percentage and might well have been within the phrase "about".
1.2%的偏差在「about」的範圍內。
在之前文章提過，如果船舶需要等潮水，但可能等待幾天才能進出港口的，不會認為該泊位、港口不安全。可參法官Devlin在The Stork [1954]2 Lloyd’s Rep.397 案中，在第415頁判決書中所說：
The law does not require the port tobe safe at the very time of the vessel’s arrival, so she may encounter similar conditions which delay her entry into the port, and the charterers is no more responsible for the one than for the other.
但如果相對於航次而言等待時間過長或者是無論如何，都需要減載才能進港的話，則這個港口對於該船而言是不安全的。可參第7版的《Time Charter》Chapter10-Safe Ports and Berths, 10.24，如下：
10.24 It has also been held that a port is unsafe if, in orderto enter it, the ship must lighten some of her cargo.
The Peerless was employed under a voyage charter which required that she should discharge at a safe port. She was ordered to discharge at King’s Lynn but her draft was too great to allow her to enter on any tide with her full cargo of maize. Sankey, J., held that the port was unsafe for her and that the owners were entitled to recover the cost of lighters.
Hall v. Paul (1914) 19 Com. Cas. 384.
所以，如果承租人在裝貨之前沒有明確告訴船長，卸港的港口情況，尤其是吃水限制，那麼如果最終導致船舶在抵達卸港的時候因為超吃水問題靠不了港，那麼是承租人違約，違反了安全港口責任。當然這個前提是在租船合同中已經規定了承租人對安全港口負責；如果承租人無需負責，那麼風險將只能出租人自行承擔。
如果承租人在裝貨之前，已經提供了相關信息，那麼船長應該聽從承租人的指示，按照有吃水限制的來配載。在期租情況下，筆者建議，船長所有的配載圖，均需先發給承租人，並要求承租人給予書面確認，方可發送給代理及其他相關方。這麼做一是可以避免因船舶常數，壓載水數量等方面可能達不到出租人要求而事後被索賠的問題；而是可以把責任推到承租人身上。承租人在期租合同下，比如NYPE46格式第11條，That the Charterers shall furnish the Captain from t imeto t ime with all requisite instructions and sailing direct ions,…承租人必須時不時給予所有需要的指示以便船長行事。
如果碰到承租人要求裝載某一特定貨量的情況，比如Min/Max30,000噸。在這種情況下，出租人及船長需要特別注意，做好以下幾個方面的工作：
1. 先聲明裝卸貨是承租人的責任風險；承租人得按船長提供的PRE-STOWAGE PLAN提供相應的貨物出租人及船方不負責裝多或者裝少。
2. 船長應做好水尺計算，尤其是快完貨的時候；比如裝到28,000噸了，此刻水尺一定要計算準確，清楚明確地要求承租人、代理或碼頭方再提供2,000噸貨。
3. 如果完貨了，做水尺後經過仔細計算發現總共裝了30,100噸，則立刻要求碼頭負責把多出的貨卸出去並及時通報承租人及代理。該要求必須以書面的形式發出並儘量得到承租人、代理或碼頭方的確認。
4. 如果承租人、代理或碼頭方以沒有卸貨設備拒絕把多出的貨卸回去，則一定要收到承租人或碼頭方的書面確認。
5. 如果承租人或代理以影響開航為由，要求正常籤發大副收據及提單，要不就威脅說停租什麼的，則一定要取得承租人書面確認，並聲明保留相應的權利。
假如承租人要求某個艙裝特定數量的貨物，情景也一樣，與此類似。
做這些就是最大努力把責任轉嫁到承租人身上，出租人船長做這些都是遵從了承租人的指示；如果出了問題，則可以依據英國法下賦予的默示賠償權找承租人索賠對應的損失。
如果在期租合同裡沒有具體列明應該賠償的事項，英國普通法下的默示賠償權的基本原則，可追溯到Bret法官在Dugdale v Lovering (1875) LR 10CP 196案中提到的默示索賠權：
...that when an act has been done by the plaintiff under the express directions of the defendant which occasions and injury to the rights of third persons, yet if such an act is not apparently illegal in itself, but is done honestly and bona fide in compliance with the defendant’s directions, he shall be bound to indemnify the plaintiff against the consequences thereof.
以及Mustil法官在The 「Georges C Lemos」 [1991] 2 Lloyd’sRep.107 案中所說：
Usual form of time charter contract when the charterer requires to have the vessel at his disposal and to be free to choose voyages and cargoes and negotiates bill of lading terms also, adopts the concept that the owner must be expected to grant such freedom only if he was entitled to be indemnified against loss and liability resulting from it. In other words indemnity serves to compensate the owner against losses arising from risks or costs which he has not expresslyor implicitly agreed in time charterparty to bear.
The right to indemnity exists notwithstanding the fact that the loss incurred while complying with the order which the time charterer was entitled to give and the shipowner was bound to obey. Furthermore, the loss must directly arise from the charterer’sinstructions, be one which the owner must not be taken to have accepted and the owners』 compliance with the order should not break the chain of causation but it is the essential link in the chain of causation.
這個默示賠償權問題，如果運用的好，對出租人是個非常好的保護。
還有一種情況，比如合同規定貨量為150,000mts 10% more or less in Owners』 option，這個時候，在沒有收到承租人書面確認之前，貨量一定不能超過165,000噸，一旦籤發超過165,000噸的提單，則可能面臨巨額索賠問題。如果萬一多裝了些貨，船長一定要在水尺上做功夫，把貨量調到165,000噸內；或者明確要求承租人把多餘的貨卸回去。在程租合同下，沒有默示賠償權一說，因此只能出租人及船長自己努力把好關。筆者十年前曾碰到實例，因船長沒注意承租人合同要求，裝超了合同上限幾噸，籤發了大副收據，代理隨後籤發了對應的提單。因礦價下跌太多，最後承租人以提單數超過合同規定的上限貨量，信用證結不了匯，整船貨不要了。出租人收不到運費，只能自己想辦法去把貨賣了減少損失。
結合這些，筆者建議，作為一個嚴謹的船長，在收到航次指示的時候，不妨多問問承租人及其代理，貨物的積載因素，裝卸港的水密度，是否有吃水限制，半途是否有加油計劃以及別的一些需要特別注意的等相關問題，然後依據船舶自身情況，制定出一份符合各方要求的配載圖，避免出現問題。
來源：海商法研究中心
【海事律師為您解答海事海商疑問】
歡迎關注海事律師公眾號，本號為大家推送涵蓋以下類別的知識、動態：船貨保險、油汙碰撞、行政訴訟、船員權益、涉漁糾紛、海工港航，提供海商、海事、涉外、涉船、涉海等領域的諮詢服務。新朋友可以掃描下方二維碼或點擊頂部藍字「海事律師」添加關注。
投稿或諮詢請發郵件至 highlaw@foxmail.com 或直接在平臺後回復
海事律師