戰爭條款與罷工條款之解釋

楊仁壽

以往各航次傭船契約中之解約條款（cancelling clause），在傳統上幾乎都僅賦予「傭船人」（charterers）單方面可以解約，若「船東」想解約，僅在「罷工條款」（strike clause）或「戰爭條款」（war clause）中，明示地賦予有此權限，但在該等條款中規定得相當嚴格。

例如「Gencon」於1976年第16條規定「戰爭風險」（war risk）的定義，以1950Voywar為根據，規定包括為：「任何的封鎖、任何政府或交戰者及其他組織體之封鎖與其宣示的行為、停工、海賊行為、任何現實的戰爭或戰爭之威脅、敵對行為、軍事行為、內戰、內亂或革命（shall include any blockade or any action which is announced as a blockade by any Government or by any belligerent or by any organized body, sabotage, piracy, and any actual or threatened war, hostilities, warlike operations, civil war, civil commotion, or revolution）。」作了相當的限制。

直至1994年才開始以「Voywar 1993」為依據，其第17條第1項（b）款，將「戰爭風險」的定義，擴大包括為：「任何戰爭（不問是實際的戰爭或是有戰爭之虞）、戰爭行為、內戰、敵對行為、革命、反亂、內亂、類似戰爭行為、布雷（不問是實際的布雷或是報告）、海賊行為、恐怖行為或惡行的損害、封鎖（不問對全部的船舶、與選擇性特定國籍、特定船東之船舶、特定的貨物、特定的船員或是其他任何人）、因任何人、組織、恐怖分子、組織團體，或是任何國家的政府，凡此以船長／或船東之合理的判斷，認為對該輪或貨物、船員或其他在該輪乘船之人，具有危險之可能性或者危險（shall include any war (whether actual or threatened), act of war, civil war, hostilities, revolution, rebellion, civil commotion, warlike operations, the laying of mines (whether actual or reported), acts of piracy, acts of terrorists, acts of hostility or malicious damage, blockades (whether imposed against all Vessels or imposed selectively against Vessels of certain flags or ownership, or against certain cargoes or crews or otherwise howsoever), by any person, body, terrorist or political group, or the Government of any state whatsoever, which, in the reasonable judgement of the Master and/or the Owners, may be dangerous or are likely to be or to become dangerous to the Vessel, her cargo, crew or other persons on board the Vessel）。」

又如「Centrocon」1914年，經過核定的「巴爾的摩船席穀物傭船契約」（Approved Baltimore Berth Grain Charter Party）中之「罷工條款」（Strike Clause），原僅以「併入」（incorporated）的方式，併入該傭船契約，其第9條規定：「在卸貨港將於所有使用時間超過許可卸貨時間的時間，受貨人應按每天200英鎊繳付延滯費（未滿一天按比例計算）。若有節餘時間，則受貨人可按所有節餘許可裝卸時間得到每天100英鎊的快速費，未滿一天亦按比例計算。另外在傭船契約末端則打上『Centrocon罷工條款，應全部視為本傭船契約的一部份』等字樣（At discharging port receive to pay demurrage, if incurred, at the rate of £ 200 per day or pro rata for part of a day, for all time used in discharging in excess of allowed laytime. Receive to collect dispatch money, if earned, at discharging port, at the rate of £ 100 per day foreach and every day or pro rata for all laytime saved in discharging），（A typed addition at the end of the charter-party provided: “The ‘Centrocon Strike Clause’ is deemed to be the fully incorporated in this charter-party”）。」

而其所附加之「Centrocon罷工條款」，與此有關的僅寥寥數語：「……由於受阻所致之遲延……（delay by reason of obstructions…..）」，不但定義欠明，而且極易引起不同的解釋，易偏向貨方，或偏向船東，全靠法院或仲裁人的判決或判斷。

其後「Centrocon Strike Clause」始修正為：「如船舶由於暴動、內亂或任何對裝貨或卸貨工作占重要地位之工人罷工、停工、或由於傭船人所無法控制之鐵路、碼頭或其他裝貨（或卸貨）地點的阻隔或停工，而無法進行裝貨或卸貨時，則在該項事故持續間，不計算許可裝卸時間。惟在罷工或停工之前，若合理地盡力仍可能以當時之費率僱得其他適合的工人時，經託運人及（或）受貨人的工人罷工或停工的時間延滯費仍然照算。如因上述原因所造成之任何遲延所致之毀損或延滯，傭船人、受貨人或船東均不得提出賠償要求。不過在結算快速費時，由於上訴原因而致船舶損失的時間，均應算為裝貨或卸貨所使用的時間（If the cargo cannot be loaded by reason of Riots, Civil Commotions or of a Strike or Lock-out of any class of workmen essential to the loading of the cargo, or by reason of obstructions or stoppages beyond the control of the Charterers caused by Riots, Civil Commotions or a Strike or Lock-out on the Railways, or in the Docks, or other loading places, or if the cargo cannot be discharged by reason of Riots, Civil Commotions or of a Strike or Lockout of any class of workmen essential to the discharge, the time for loading or discharging, as the case may be, shall not count during the continuance of such causes, provided that a Strike or Lock-out of the Shippers’ and/or Receivers’ men shall not prevent demurrage accruing if by the use of reasonable diligence they could have obtained other suitable labour at rates current before the Strike or Lock-out. In case of any delay by reason of the before-mentioned causes, no claim for damages or demurrage shall be made by the Charterers/Receivers of the cargo, or Owners of the Vessel. For the purpose, however, of settling despatch money accounts, any time lost by the Vessel through any of the above causes shall be counted as time used in loading or discharging, as the case may be）。」

但此項修改的文字，仍有隱晦之處，備受微詞，例如在Union of India v. Compania Naviera Aeolus, S.A.一案，英國商業法院認為（註1）：「只要船舶已然延滯，除非有一項免責事由，能很清楚使之中止，否則沒有任何例外情事，可阻止延滯的持續（that once a vessel is on demurrage no exception will operate to prevent demurrage continuing to be payable unless an exception is clearly made to have that effect）。」而判決傭船人敗訴。

傭船人不服提起上訴，上訴法院改判稱：「該條款的2部分，在形式上及實質上均有差別。該條款之後半部分很明白地，包括僅適用於許可卸貨時間的第2部分。雖然此2部分可以說是相互重覆，但應知道的是傭船契約的草擬，是很少能夠極為精確的，故傭船人不需負責給付額外的延滯費（The two parts of the clause were different in form and in substance. The phrase in the latter part of the clause should be regarded as a provision that was clearly worded so as to cover that which was not covered by the first part of the clause, which only applied to laydays. Although it might be argued that the two parts of the clause overlapped, it should be borne in mind that charter-parties are rarely, if ever, drawn up with precision……that the charterers were not liable to pay additional demurrage）。」改判決船東敗訴（註2）。

最後，船東不服，上訴到上議院（house of Lords），一錘定音（註3），亦即「一旦延滯，即持續延滯」（once on demurrage, always on demurrage）（註4）。上議院就此有3點說明，即：

一、如果船舶由於暴動、內亂或任何對裝貨（或卸貨）工作，占重要地位之工人罷工、停工或由於傭船人所無法控制之鐵路、碼頭或其他裝貨或卸貨地點的阻隔或停工而無法進行裝貨或卸貨，則在該項事故延續期間，不計算許可裝卸時間（If the cargo cannot be loaded by reason of riots, civil commotions, or of as strike or lock-out of any class of workmen essential to the loading of the cargo, or by reason of obstructions or stoppages beyond the control of the charterers on the railways, or in the docks or other loading places or if the cargo cannot be discharged by reason of riots, civil commotions or of a strike or lock-out of any class of workmen essential to the discharging, the time for loading or discharging as the case may be, shall not count during the continuance of such causes）。

二、在罷工或停工之「前」，若合理地盡力仍可能以當時之費率僱得其他適當的人工時，則託運人及／或受貨人的工人罷工或停工的時間延滯仍將照算（Provided that a strike or lock-out of the shippers’ and/or receivers’ men shall not prevent demurrage accruing if by the use of reasonable diligence they could have obtained other suitable labour at rates current before the strike or lock-out）。

三、若因上述原因所造成的任何遲延所致之毀損或延滯，傭船人、受貨人或船東均不得提出賠償（In case of any delay by reason of the before-mentioned cause no claim for damages or demurrage shall be made by the charterers, receivers of cargo, or owners of the steamer）。

綜上英國上議院的判決，雖然沒有直接說明，傭船人已裝卸遲滯，則在遲滯中即使發生暴動、停工或由於傭船人無法控制的免責事由，但其弦外之意，已甚明確，於此情形，仍應由傭船人負擔延滯費，無從推諉。此即英國大法官Scrutton所提出「一旦開始延滯，即持續延滯」理由之所在。

Scrutton大法官之所持此一見解並被上議院所採用，並非自此一案開始，而於N.V. Reederij Amsterdam v. President of India一案的傍論（註5），已間接提及，此乃裝貨時間應自準備完成通知翌日開始計算，但於開始前，裝貨已因免責事由發生而受阻始可。

【註】

1. Ct. (1960) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 112。
2. A. (1961) 1 Lloyd’s Rep 132。
3. L. (1962) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 175。
4. 參見楊仁壽，最新海商法論，第4版，第278頁，註3。
5. 傍論（Obiter dictum）並無拘束力，與具有一般性的規範（ratio decidendi）具有拘束力不同。參見楊仁壽，法學方法論，第3版，第380頁。不過該判決建議於格式內加上「除非船舶已然延滯」（unless the vessel is already on demurrage）等字，以免爭論，確實至言。參見 Ct. (1960) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 82; C.A. (1961) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1。該判決判傭船人勝訴。