当前位置:首页 >  海商风险 > 关于address commission的收取是否应包含滞期费

关于address commission的收取是否应包含滞期费

  • 发布时间:2021-5-26
  • 阅读次数:2720
  • 编辑:航运在线
关于address commission的收取是否应包含滞期费
 
尊敬的杨先生
您好

最进我们公司程租了同一个船东的三条船,用的是同一个performa c/p.在合同中规定了“3.75% addcomm”的字样。前两条船进行的都没有问题,船东在收取尾帐的发票中主动扣除了3.75% 的滞期费跟运费做为addcomm,我司也及时给予了确认并顺利付款。但是在做第三条船时关于addcomm的问题出了争议,由于此船的滞期费高达200多万美金,船东突然提出addcomm的计算不应包含滞期费,理由是根据一条BIMCO ADV,如下所示:
Enquiry: Clause 14 of the printed text was deleted entirely and a rider clause states " Brokerage commission and to whom payable (Clause 14)" to which was added "2.5 per cent. address commission to Charterers plus 1.25 per cent. each to (us) and (Charterers' broker)". There is no other reference to this matter in either the printed form or the attached clauses.

Owners have claimed an amount due for demurrage against which an amount covering despatch earned by charterers. Thus there is a "net" claim in excess of USD 50,000.00 due to owners. Charterers have accepted owners' calculations in every respect but one, namely that charterers and their broker claim that demurrage should be paid net of 3.75%. We and owners have disputed this on the grounds that unless specifically mentioned in the C/P there should be no deduction made from demurrage rightly claimed by owners. Whilst this dispute continues, owners are in receipt of no balance from charterers. BIMCO's advice was sought as to whether charterers in the circumstances were entitled to deduct commission from demurrage due to owners.

Reply: Starting with the ultimate paragraph of your enquiry there is absolutely no rationale for withholding an amount which is undisputed and, hence, charterers' non-payment of the amount which is undisputed is totally unwarranted.

When it comes to the question of whether or not commission is due on demurrage the answer is that commission on demurrage is not payable unless the governing C/P expressly so provides. In this context we refer to page 17 of this book and we also quote the following excerpt from a handbook on maritime law entitled Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading:

"The commission may be expressed to be payable on the freight, dead freight and demurrage, but, in the absence of such expression, 'Commission at ..... per cent.' will be payable on freight only (Moor Line v. Dreyfus [1918] 1 K.B. 89."

我想请问杨先生的是 1.BIMCO 的解释是否对所有格式的租船合同都有效力还是只对BIMCO所制定的合同格式有效 2.船东在前两条船都默认的情况下,只在第三条船对addcomm的计算方法提出异议是否违反了英国合约法的弃权与禁止反言的原则,我们是否能根据这一点对其提出抗辩。

恳请杨先生能在百忙之中抽时间予以解答

万分感谢
简单的答案是BIMCO不是法院,所以他的说法是没有法律的效力。但既然格式是BIMCO拟定的,他的解释可以是作为格式为什么这样去表达的本意。加上BIMCO有这方面的水平,不像一些水平不足的人士经常会词不达意,所以BIMCO的解释在商业的角度是有一定的说服力。但说到底,BIMCO的解释只是一个意见,充其量是一个好的意见。如果去问其他的大律师或者法学教授,会有可能是一个不同的意见。即使是英国法院作出判决,也只是大法官的意见。只不过在英国法律的制度上,这意见变了是判决,往后大家是需要去接受并依照这一个解释行事,直到被推翻。

在过往的历史中,有无数的例子是英国法院判BIMCO格式的措辞并非准确表达格式的本意,这导致了BIMCO需要去在后来对格式进行修改或推出新的版本。再说,绝少的租约会是完全以版本为主没有附加条文,所以整体解释起来更加不会是BIMCO一个解释可以去解决问题。至于BIMCO的解释是否适用在所有其他的格式,这个问题就站不住脚。每一份不同的格式都有不同的写法,这些不同的写法被当事人接受为合约明示条文,解释起来就要看到底这些条文是怎么写。希望你们参考我的著作《合约的解释》法律出版社出版。

至于船东在前两条船都默认的情况下,只在第三条船对addcomm的计算方法提出异议是否违反了英国合约法的弃权与禁止反供的原则的问题,答案是“否”(除非有特殊的事实与情况)。因为这三个合约毕竟是不同的合约,而且弃权与禁止反供是衡平法,必须要讲究合理。试想,如果船东在上两条船的租约计算错误,算少了,难道他就必须一路错下去,永远不能去修正,原因是弃权与禁止反供,这怎么会是公平合理。所以占了便宜而且知道的话,为了防止对方将来去修正,就应该试图达成和解协议,作为full and final settlement,这才会有机会避免对方翻案。另也可以在往后的租约中加上条较短的时效条文。

杨良宜
交流中心
暂无信息!
[共1/0页] [5条/页] [总条数:0]  第  
我要发表评论
  • * 提示:本栏目话题提交后,需要通过审核才能显示
  • 匿      称:*
  • 评论内容:*