船舶燃油供应合同中买方需重点关注的事项
无论买方是直接从实体供应商渠道购买燃油，还是通过经纪人或贸易商购买燃油，无论销售是在全球框架协议下进行，还是在港口临时进行，一个共同的特点是卖方的条款一般都占优势。
2020年1月1日，国际海事组织(IMO)2020低硫限制规定开始生效。Gard保赔协会和其他航运组织以及保险行业已经广泛地撰写了有关低硫油规定的防损材料。但是，购买燃油的条款也许还未得到足够的关注。
卖方的条款通常包含对卖方责任的固定限制(通常很低)，对某些类型损失(如时间损失、利润损失、间接或因果损失)的除外条款，买方索赔的时效，以及有利于卖方的证据、法律和管辖权条款。随着BIMCO在2015年引入BIMCO标准燃油条款，该条款在2018年进行了更新，市场上已经出现了一些对标准燃油采购合同的尝试和努力。这些合同比典型的卖方标准条款更加公正，船东、租船人和燃油公司的代表都参与了BIMCO条款的起草过程。
从商业谈判的角度来看，如果作为全球框架协议的一部分，买家预先同意从单个或少数卖方手中购买燃油，可能更容易达成更公平的条款。
以BIMCO条款为起点，买家可尝试就下列清单上的一些关键问题进行协商:
燃油供应合同-关键问题清单
·对卖方的尽职调查：考虑卖方的市场声誉和财务状况，详细了解财务状况和保险状况(见下文)以及之前涉及的供货问题。他们是实体供应商还是只是中间商?他们如何验证所提供的燃油的质量?他们的供应链质量管理程序是什么?
·对燃油的尽职调查：考虑您需要的关于燃油及其产地的信息。关于船上燃油的储存、操作、处理和使用是否有特殊的参数要求?您是否需要燃油质量证书中有具体的信息?有关供给和使用0.50%含硫燃油的联合行业指南如下，供参阅:
·燃油规格：合同应明确燃油的正确规格—例如，明确说明相关的ISO标准。对于残油，使用最广泛的标准是ISO 8217（表2）。表2中的硫含量规格是根据“法定要求”规定的，自2020年1月1日起，国际防止船舶污染公约规定的硫含量限值为0.50%，这比硫氧化物排放控制区（SECAs）规定的限值更低。ISO 8217定期进行修订，行业指南推荐使用最新版本ISO 8217 2017。检查您的燃油供应条款中燃油规格是否符合IMO 2020要求，同时是否也符合租船合同的要求，以确保其背靠背。进一步要考虑添加的明示条款是燃油不含污染物，符合使用目的，符合国际防止船舶污染公约要求。
·抽样和质量检测：合同应规定双方议定的抽样和质量检测方法，包括硫含量的测定。理想情况下，应该分别对燃油供应商和船上的样品进行分析，而不是只分析供应商的样品。此外，在尽可能的范围内，抽样和检测要求也需要符合租船合同要求，这样买方才不会使用不同的检测标准。在理想的情况下，抽样过程应在合同中详细规定，并应采用议定的分析方法。还应考虑是否应在合同中确定优先认可的实验室进行检测。如果有关于特定燃油的质量或特性的争议，双方不同意实验室测试可能会使问题变得复杂且不能及时得到解决。
·质量索赔时效：考虑到检测可能需要在燃油供应地点以外认证的实验室进行，理想的情况下合同应包括质量索赔时效，以便有足够的时间进行质量检测。根据协会经验，燃油合同的时效通常太短，特别是考虑到燃油可能不会立即使用(例如，根据租约规定，燃油测试结果可能需要在其实际使用之前确定)，而且即使是迅速使用，问题也可能不会立即出现。协会已经接触过一些案件，这些案件中在燃油被使用前，针对供应商的追偿就已过时效。协会建议将索赔时效调整到使用燃油后的14天内，或者设置更长的时效期间，例如45天。
·责任限制：标准燃油供应合同通常包括一个较低的共同责任限制数额(通常是燃油发票金额的一倍或至多两倍)。考虑通过协商增加责任限制总额，以反映这样一个事实，即由于装载或消耗不合规燃油所造成的损失价值可能很高。建议尽可能将责任限制额定在燃油价值的至少两倍或更多。另一种选择是同时参照具体数额和至少两倍的燃油价值，使用二者中价值最高的一种。最后，确保任何议定的限制都应适用于双方(而不仅仅是卖方)。
·“丹麦宝运石油”问题：如果直接从实体供应商购买燃油则风险相对而言较小，但如果通过经纪人或贸易商购买有可能会面临有一种风险，即他们可能没有向实际燃油供应商支付本应该支付的燃油价款，如果发生破产事件，这可能导致相互冲突的付款要求和买家需要支付两次燃油价款的风险。明智的做法是列入卖方保证已为燃油付款的条款，而买方有权要求卖方提供证据，证明在买方付款给卖方之前，卖方已向任何第三方支付了燃油款。因此，如果卖方没有提供证据，买方可以不付款/索偿卖方违约。
更谨慎的做法是加入一项条款，即买家有权拒绝支付燃油费用，直至相关的法庭/审判席裁决卖方或实体供应商或任何第三方是否对买方/船舶有直接索赔权利。如果加入上述条款，由相关法庭/审判席决定，合同也可以规定向燃油卖方以外的一方付款，应被视为权利归属于合法的一方，以保障买家免于向不止一方支付（不止一次）燃油价款。
同时，也应考虑合同的制定应依从于1979英国货物买卖法，以便订立销售合同(考虑对燃油适用性和质量的关注，以及对卖方在将燃油出售给买方时要拥有燃油的所有权的要求，引进该法案进行保障)。
·保险：理想情况下，卖方应该有适当的保险，并应提供证据。例如，此类保险可能包括信用保险、职业责任保险和产品责任保险。
·当地法律法规：大多数标准合同都将当地法律法规纳入燃油供应合同。当地法律法规会给合同双方带来在他们签订合同时可能没意识到的意外情况。因此，建议考虑将地方法律和法规全部排除在外，或限制其仅适用于燃油取样。
·统一燃油供应条款：理想情况下，所有供应商都应使用相同的供应条款，以明确风险分配，并避免使用特别的供应商友好条款。实际上，与主要供应商达成框架协议或标准条款。
·留置权：尽量避免给予卖方船舶留置权或对第三方提起诉讼的权利（如租船人为买家时，针对船东提起诉讼），因为这可能导致租船合同下的严重问题。另一个需要考虑的问题是增加一个明确的条款，即如果第三方就从卖方购买的燃油对船舶提出留置权或债权，卖方必须使买方不受损害并赔偿买方。同样，也可以包括一项条款，卖方保证涉及燃油问题的情况下，第三方没有权力向买方索赔，或行使任何留置权、指控、债权或扣留船舶或任何姐妹船。最后，考虑在合同中加入一项条款，即如果出现了上述情况的索赔，卖方应予以配合，允许互争权利诉讼。请参阅协会对丹麦宝运石油的有关评论：
·除外责任：考虑您是否希望免除间接损失（可能会延长时间损失）。请注意经常出现在订制的卖家合同中某些宽泛的除外条款。确保任何除外条款在双方同意的情况下相互适用。
·法律和管辖权：避免适用美国法律(由于海上留置权的原因)，并且同意适用一个中立的法律/管辖权，这不一定是卖方的选择。
上述建议是来自Gard协会在涉及燃油质量的纠纷与诉讼方面的经验。对于买方来说，理解因接受卖方条款带来的后果十分重要，同时更应该努力去协商签订一个更加公平的合同。即使条款不可协商，在选择卖方之前进行尽职调查也可减轻风险。
我们感谢HFW律师团队，Rory Butler和Louise Lazarou对协会的贡献。协会发布2020国际船舶防止污染公约关于低硫要求的文章、警报和通函，可在协会网站获取，主题包括残油硫含量规范和测试,低硫燃油的稳定性和兼容性,为应对港口国检查准备船员，协会对于违规行为的承保限制等。
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。
Bunker supply contracts – key considerations for the buyer
Regardless of whether a buyer purchases fuel directly from physical suppliers or via brokers or traders and whether sale is under a global framework agreement or ad hoc on a port by port basis, a common feature is that the seller’s terms generally prevail.
On 1 January 2020, the lower sulphur limit imposed pursuant to IMO 2020 regulations came into effect. The new regulations have been written about extensively by Gard and others in the shipping and insurance industries. However, the terms upon which bunkers are purchased is perhaps not given the consideration it deserves.
Sellers' terms often incorporate fixed (often low) limits on sellers’ liability, exclusions for certain types of loss (e.g. loss of time, profit, indirect or consequential loss), short time bars for buyers’ claims, and evidential and law and jurisdiction clauses in sellers' favour. There have been moves to try and work towards standard bunker purchase contracts with BIMCO introducing BIMCO Bunker Purchase Terms in 2015 which were updated in 2018. These contracts are more balanced than typical sellers' standard terms, and representatives from owners, charterers and bunker companies were all involved in the drafting process.
From a commercial bargaining perspective, it may be easier to negotiate more balanced terms if they are agreed in advance as part of a worldwide framework agreement to buy bunkers from a single or small number of sellers.
Taking the BIMCO Terms as a starting point buyers may try to negotiate on some of the following checklist key items:
Bunker supply contracts – key issues checklist
• Due diligence with respect to the seller: consider market reputation and financial standing of sellers, in terms of financial standing and insurance position (see below) and involvement in previous supply issues. Are they also a physical supplier or only an intermediary? How do they verify the quality of the fuel supplied? What are their supply chain quality management procedures?
• Due diligence with respect to the fuel: consider what information you need about the fuel and its origin. Are there any special parameters regarding storage, handling, treatment and use of the fuel on board? Do you require specific information in the Certificate of Quality?
Helpful Joint Industry Guidance is available on the supply and use of 0.50%-sulphur fuel:
• Fuel specification: the contract should identify the correct specification of the fuel - for example by expressly stating the relevant ISO specification. For residual fuels, the most widely used specification is ISO 8217 Table 2. The Table 2 specification for sulphur content is stated as per “statutory requirements” and, since 1 January 2020, the global MARPOL sulphur limit is 0.50% with lower limits set for SECAs. ISO 8217 is periodically revised and the industry guidance recommends the most recent version, ISO 8217 2017. Check whether the fuel specified in your bunker supply terms complies with IMO 2020 and that this also accords with charterparty requirements so it is back-to-back. A further point to consider adding is an express term that the fuel is free of contaminants, is fit for purpose and complies with MARPOL.
• Sampling and quality testing: the contract should specify the agreed sampling and quality testing regime, including for sulphur content. Ideally, a sample from each of the bunker supplier and the vessel should be analysed as opposed to only the supplier's sample. Again, insofar as possible, sampling and testing requirements need to match the charterparty so the buyer is not exposed to different test standards. Ideally, the sampling process should be set out in detail in the contract together with the agreed analysis regime that is to be used. Consideration should also be given as to whether preferred accredited labs for testing should be identified in the contract. In the event there is a dispute about the quality or characteristic of the particular stem, inability to agree to a lab for testing may complicate and delay resolution.
• Quality claims time bar: the contract should ideally include a quality claim time bar that allows sufficient time for quality testing to be performed, taking into consideration that testing might need to take place at an accredited lab located at a place other than the place of supply. In our experience, bunker contract time bars are normally far too short, especially given that bunkers may not be immediately used (for example bunker test results may be required under the charter before the bunkers are in fact used) and even when used promptly problems may not manifest themselves immediately. We have seen cases where the bunker recourse claim against the supplier is time barred before the bunkers have been used. It is recommended to link any time bar to 14 days after use of the bunkers or alternatively to have a much longer time bar period, for example 45 days.
• Limitation of liability: standard bunker supply contracts usually include a low mutual limitation of liability figure (usually one or at most two times the invoiced value of the fuel). Consider negotiating increased limitation of liability sums to reflect the fact that losses arising from loading or consumption of off-specification fuel can be very high in value. It is suggested that at least twice the value of the fuel or more should be targeted where possible. An alternative option is to include reference to both a specific amount and at least twice the value of the fuel provision, with the highest of the two applying. Lastly, make sure that any limitation agreed applies mutually to both parties (rather than just the sellers).
• The "OW Bunkers" issue: if buying direct from a physical supplier there is less risk, but if purchasing via a broker or trader there is a risk they may not have paid their counterpart for the bunkers which could, in the event of their insolvency, lead to competing payment demands and the risk for the buyer of having to pay twice. It is sensible to include provisions under which the sellers warrant they have paid for the bunkers and the buyer has a right to request evidence from the sellers that they have paid any third parties for the bunkers before the buyer is required to pay the sellers' invoice, such that if no evidence is provided the buyer may withhold payment/hold sellers in breach.
It is further prudent to include a term that in the event of bankruptcy of the sellers, the buyer will be entitled to withhold payment for the fuel until the relevant court/tribunal determines whether sellers or the physical suppliers or any third parties have a claim directly against the buyer/vessel. If there is such a determination, the contract can also provide that payment to a party other than sellers for the fuel, as determined by the relevant court/tribunal, shall be deemed to subordinate the claim to the rightful party in order to safeguard the buyer from having to pay more than one party (and more than once!) for the fuel.
Consider also making the contract subject to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, so as to make the contract a contract of sale (thus bringing in the Act's protection so far as fitness for purpose and quality are concerned, and the requirement that the Sellers also have good title to the fuel at the time of sale to the buyer).
• Insurance: sellers should ideally have insurance in place and should be required to produce evidence of this. Such insurance may for example include credit, professional indemnity and product liability insurance.
• Local rules and regulations: most standard term contracts incorporate local rules and regulations into the bunker supply contracts. Local rules and regulations can bring about surprises that the parties to the contract might not be aware of at the time of contracting. Consideration is accordingly recommended to be given to the exclusion of local rules and regulations either in their entirety or to limit their applicability to fuel sampling only.
• Uniform bunker supply terms: ideally the same supply terms should be used across the board with all suppliers so as to have certainty over the risk allocation and to avoid the use of ad hoc supplier friendly terms. In effect, have a framework agreement/standard terms agreed with major suppliers.
• Lien: try and avoid provisions that give the sellers a lien over the vessel or any rights of action against third parties (e.g. the owner if the charterer is the buyer) as this can cause serious issues under the charterparty. A further point to consider, is to add an express provision that the sellers must hold the buyer harmless and indemnify the buyer in the event that a third party asserts a lien or encumbrance on the vessel in relation to the fuel purchased from the sellers. Similarly, a clause can also be included by which the sellers warrant that no third party has any right to claim against the buyer in relation to the fuel, or exercise any right of lien, charge, encumbrance or arrest over the vessel or any sister vessels in respect of the fuel. Lastly, consider including a provision that if such a claim nevertheless arises, the sellers shall co-operate to allow interpleader proceedings. See also our comments on the OW Bunkers issue above.
• Exclusions: consider whether you wish to exclude indirect or consequential loss (as this could extend to loss of time). Be careful of broad term exclusions that are usually found in bespoke sellers' contracts. Make sure that any exclusions apply mutually to both contractual parties if they are agreed.
• Law and Jurisdiction: avoid the application of US law (due to maritime lien rights) and agree on a neutral law/jurisdiction that is not necessarily the sellers' choice.
These suggestions come from our experience in disputes and litigation involving bunker quality. It is important for buyers to understand the consequences of accepting sellers' terms and well worth the effort to attempt to negotiate a more balanced contract. Even when the terms are not negotiable, risks can be mitigated by exercising due diligence before selecting the seller.
We thank HFW solicitors, Rory Butler and Louise Lazarou for their contribution to Gard Insight. Gard publishes articles, alerts and circulars concerning the MARPOL 2020 low sulphur requirements that are available on the Gard website including topics such as residual fuel specifications and testing for sulphur content, stability and compatibility of very low sulphur fuel oils, preparing crew for port state inspections and limitations on P&I cover for non-compliance.
来源：The Gard P&I Club @ 2020.06.08
返回
