“always accessible”— 代表什么意思？
“Always Accessible” – what does it mean?
“always accessible”— 代表什么意思？
来源：the charterers P&I club @2018.03.28
Background 背景
Assureds will no doubt be familiar with the terms “always accessible” and “reachable on arrival” used in some voyage charterparties, particularly in the tanker trade. While it is accepted the latter term applies only to the arrival of the vessel at the loading/discharging berth, it is questionable whether the former applies to both arrival and departure or to arrival only.
被保险人对某些航次租船合同中，特别是油轮贸易中，使用的“always accessible”和 “reachable on arrival” 的术语十分熟悉。“reachable on arrival”的术语只适用于船舶抵达装货/卸货泊位的情形，这无可厚非，但是“always accessible”的术语是在抵达和驶离泊位时均可适用还是仅适用于抵达泊位的情形是存在争议的。
There are a number of English legal authorities and arbitration awards dealing with the term “always accessible”. However, they mostly focus on the vessel’s arrival with little commentary available addressing the position on departure.
英国司法当局和仲裁裁决都大量提及过“always accessible”这一术语。然而，他们通常关注该术语对船舶抵达的适用，而对船舶离泊的适用却很少发表评论。
In the case “The Aconcagua Bay”, the English High Court was asked to consider whether the warranty “always accessible” means that the Charterers guarantee to the Owners that the vessel must not only be always able to enter but also leave the berth in the context of a voyage charterparty.
在“The Aconcagua Bay”一案中，英国高等法院被要求考虑“always accessible”的保证是否意味着承租人向船东保证在该航次中，船舶不仅总能驶入泊位，且也总能驶离泊位。
The Facts 案情
The vessel “Aconcagua Bay” was chartered on an amended GENCON 94 form for a voyage US Gulf to Republic of Congo and Angola. The charter party provided:“Loading port or place: 1 good safe berth always afloat always accessible”.
“Aconcagua Bay”船是在经修正的金康94标准格式合同下以航次租船的方式去完成从美国湾到刚果共和国和安哥拉共和国的航次。租船合同规定：“Loading port or place: 1 good safe berth always afloat always accessible”。
The vessel reached the loading berth uneventfully but was held for 14 days after loading as a result of a bridge and a lock within the port channel being damaged. Owners claimed damages for detention from the Charterers for the delays arguing they had breached the “always accessible” warranty.
该船舶当时顺利到达装货泊位，但在完成装载后因港口通道内的吊桥和船闸被损害而滞留了14天。船东要求承租人赔偿滞留期间的损失（detention），理由是承租人违反了“always accessible”的保证。
The case was initially referred to arbitration where the Umpire ruled in favour of the Charterers in the sense that a warranty on the above terms referred only to entry to the berth and not to departure.
本案最初被提交仲裁时，仲裁员做出了有利于承租人的裁决，这从某种意义上表明上述术语的保证只涉及泊位的驶入而不涉及驶离的情形。
The High Court Judgement 高等法院判决
On appeal by the Owners, the judge ruled that the Umpire had erred in law and held that the term “always accessible” was to extend to leaving the berth. In arriving at this finding, the judge observed that where commercial parties have addressed the question of accessibility of a berth through certain terms, there is no reason to conclude that said terms would only address entry alone and exclude departure. The judge preferred Owners’ interpretation that a reasonable commercial party looking at the subject of berthing would contemplate all aspects of its use and not confine itself to getting into berth. He also shared Owners’ view that the word “always” in the term “always accessible” conveyed a sense of continuity so that, unless the parties expressly intended to omit departure of the berth, it should encompass both, entry and exit.
在船东的上诉中，法官判定原仲裁中适用法律错误，并认为“always accessible”这一术语的适用可延伸至船舶驶离泊位。在得出这一结论前，法官注意到，商事缔约方已经通过明确的条款规定了泊位通行的问题，因此没有理由得出该术语仅处理入泊事宜而不涉及离泊的结论。法官更倾向于船东的解释，即一个理性的商事缔约方在关注泊位问题时，会考虑其使用的各个方面，而不是局限于泊位的驶入。他还分享了船东的观点，即“始终always”这个词在“always accessible”的术语中传达了一种连续性的感觉，除非双方明确地有意排除泊位的驶离，否则它应该包括入泊和离泊这两种情形。
Charterers made a strong argument based on risk allocation. Charterers pleaded that the term “always accessible” is used in a warranty that concerns compliance with Owners’ requirements as to where the vessel should come and what it should do. From that moment the risk of delay shifts to the Owners so that it should not be assumed that once the vessel has entered the berth its departure on the carrying voyage stage (which calls for acts of performance by the Owners alone), alters the risk allocation.
承租人基于风险分担提出了强有力的抗辩。承租人抗辩称，“always accessible”的术语是用于保证其遵守船东的要求，即船舶应该抵达何处及应该如何行动。从延迟风险转移到船东处的那一刻起，责任承担方就易主了。因此，就不应假定船舶驶入泊位后的风险还由租家承担（该责任需由船东自行承担）。
Conclusion 结论
The position in our view is finely balanced either way so it remains to be seen if Charterers file an appeal.
双方的观点都有道理，承租人是否提起上诉还有待观察。
Meanwhile, the above case suggests that Assureds chartering out a ship on voyage basis which contain the words “always accessible” should incorporate additional language if they wish to limit their warranty to the vessel’s arrival only and therefore exclude delays that may be experienced by the vessel on departure of the berth. Using this case as an example, they may use “1 good safe berth always afloat always accessible in relation to vessel’s arrival only”.
与此同时，上述案件表明，在航次租船中，如果被保险人想要限定他们的保证仅包括船舶抵达时即可入泊，而排除船舶离泊时可能遇到滞期的话，就应在航次租船合同中并入对“always accessible”的补充说明或者额外解释。以这个案件为例，他们可以使用“1 good safe berth always afloat always accessible in relation to vessel’s arrival only”。
Conversely, Assureds chartering out as disponent owners would be advised to make no changes or to add the words “in relation to vessel’s both arrival and departure”. This additional wording will protect them in the event this decision is reversed by the Court of Appeal in the future.
相反地，若被保险人作为二船东来租船，建议勿对标准租约条款作出任何修改，或者选择补充“in relation to vessel’s both arrival and departure”类似的措辞。如此一来，一旦上诉法院撤销判决，这种补充说明的内容就会保护被保险人的权益。
通函内容，请以英文原文为准，汉语翻译仅供参考。如您对上述内容有任何疑问，新乔十分乐意为您解答并提供帮助。
返回
