保函相关风险的提示
英格兰法庭最近处理了许多关于保函的纠纷。本文着眼于一些与保函有关的当前问题。这些保函作为在未出示正本提单的情况下交付货物的凭证。国际保赔集团（IG）已批准的保函（LOI）标准格式（作为在未出示正本提单的情况下交付货物的凭证）包含开证人需提供担保的条款，在需要的情况下，防止因错误交付索赔而导致扣留或扣押。在“The Miracle Hope”案件中，此格式的保函通过租船合同链开立，以允许在未出示正本提单的情况下将超过一百万桶的石油在中国卸货。交易由一家银行提供资金，该银行通过信用证向卖方支付 $6500 万美元，但是该银行未得到其客户（接收方）的偿还。银行作为票据持有人，随后向承运人提起价值 $7,600 万美元的错误交付索赔，并在新加坡扣留该船以获取担保。主期租租家已获得一项临时强制禁令，迫使转租合同承租人提供释放船舶的担保。诉讼中，转租合同承租人和其下一级转租合同的承租人之间也发布了类似命令。双方无法就担保格式达成共识。由于2019冠状毒病，新加坡法庭似乎无法在一段时间内打破僵局。此案随后又回到了英格兰法庭。法庭并未裁定应提供哪种格式的银行担保，而是仅命令被告人在 8 天之内将 $7,800 万美元现金存入新加坡法庭，并在四个工作日内向船东支付 $83,333 美元的辩护费。本案中，法官并未采信转租合同承租人出于实际原因无法向法庭支付 $7,800 万美元的说辞，因为其未提供证据证明无法获得这笔钱并提供适当的财务文件佐证。相比之下，在 2020 年 11 月 6 日的“Tenacity Marine Inc v. NOC Swiss LLC and Gulf Petrochem” 案件中，英格兰法庭发布类似禁令，要求 NOC 根据保函条款为错误交付索赔提供担保，因为 NOC 已经证明其无力偿债，因此不可能履行保函规定的义务。设立一项条款要求船东遵守租船人的要求，即在不出示正本提单的情况下卸货，以交换保函。现在，这已成为租船合同中普遍存在的特征。根据某些租船条款，一旦提出适当要求，即视为已发出保函。这些称为保函的调用条款。在“The Miracle Hope”案件中，据辩称，租船合同要求以单独文件的形式提供独立保函，并且租赁本身不给予任何赔偿。法官裁定，租船相关条款中的一些措辞，例如“遵循被视为由租船人给予的赔偿”（following indemnity deemed to be given by Charterers），表明租船产生赔偿，无需单独信函。法官认为，这种解释也与当事人的行为一致。最后，法官认为，租船人不应就未出示正本提单的卸货命令所造成的后果向转租船东进行赔偿，在商业上是不合理且荒谬的。错误交付索赔可能会在卸货后许多年出现，并不总是受通常的适用于货物索赔的一年期限的限制。 因此，IG 批准的标准措辞并未包含对赔偿有效性的任何明确时限，且应避免包含有效期。在2018年的“The Songa Winds”案件中，根据程租规定，任何保函仅在交货后三个月内有效。对于船东而言，幸运的是，此有效期在开立保函时并未包括在保函内，因此保函在三个月后并未过期。但是，上诉法庭确实指出，租船人本可以坚持在程租中的任何保函里都加上特定有效期。在租船合同链中，船东和转租合同承租人之间并无直接的合同关系。这意味着，通常情况下，船东无权要求执行转租合同承租人对中间租约给予赔偿。这可能导致，如果发生错误交付索赔时租船人无力偿债，船东将陷入困境。依照英格兰法律，《 1999年合同（第三方权利）法》（Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999）允许第三方执行旨在向其授予利益的合同条款。由 IG 批准的保函格式规定，开立人将赔偿“您、您的雇员和代理人”（you, your servants and agents）因在未出示正本提单的情况下交付货物而遭受的损失。在2005年的“Laemthong Glory”案件中，法庭裁定，船东可以执行由收货人按照这些条款向无力偿债的租船人开立的保函，因为“代理人”一词表明使船东受益的意图。同样的结果发生于2012年的“Jag Ravi”案件中，收货人向“船东/转租船东/租船人”（the owners/ disponent owners/ charterers）开立保函。IG 目前正在审查其批准的保函格式的措辞，修订后的格式可能在不久的将来发布。The English courts have recently dealt with a number of disputes under letters of indemnity. This article looks at some of the current issues associated with letters of indemnity, given in return for delivering cargo, without production of an original bill of lading.The International Group (IG) approved standard form for a letter of indemnity (LOI) to be given in return for delivering cargo without production of an original bill of lading contains a term that the issuer will provide security, as may be required, to prevent an arrest or detention in connection with a mis-delivery claim.In The Miracle Hope, LOIs in that form were issued up through a charter chain to allow more than a million barrels of oil to be discharged in China without production of an original bill. The trade had been financed by a bank, which paid the seller US$ 65m under a letter of credit, but the bank was not reimbursed by its customer, the receiver. The bank, as holder of the bills, then pursued a mis-delivery claim worth US$ 76m against the carrier and arrested the vessel in Singapore to obtain security.Head time charterers obtained an interim mandatory injunction to compel sub-charterers to provide security to release the vessel. A similar order was issued in proceedings between the sub-charterers and sub-sub-charterers.The parties could not agree the form of the security and due to COVID-19 it seemed the Singapore Court would be unable to break the deadlock for some time. The matter then came back before the English courts.Instead of deciding what form of bank guarantee should be provided, the Court simply ordered the defendants to put cash of US$ 78m into the Singapore Court within 8 days and pay defence funds of US$ 83,333 to the head owners within four working days.In that case, the judge was not persuaded that the sub-charterers could not pay the US$ 78m into Court for practical reasons since it had not produced evidence that it was unable to find the money, supported by appropriate financial documents.In Tenacity Marine Inc v. NOC Swiss LLC and Gulf Petrochem (06 November 2020), by contrast, the English court discharged a similar injunction requiring NOC to provide security for a mis-delivery claim under the terms of an LOI because NOC had shown it was insolvent and so it was impossible for it to meet its obligations under the LOI.A clause requiring an owner to comply with a request by a charterer to discharge cargo without production of an original bill of lading in return for an LOI is now a common feature of charterparties. Under some charter clauses, the LOI is deemed to be given as soon as a proper request is made. These are known as LOI invocation clauses.In The Miracle Hope, it was argued that the charterparty required a free-standing LOI to be provided in a separate document and that the charter itself did not confer any indemnity.The Judge determined that some wording within the relevant clause of the charter – such as “following indemnity deemed to be given by Charterers” – showed that the indemnity arose under the charter without the need for a separate letter. The Judge said this interpretation was also consistent with how the parties had conducted themselves. Finally, he said it would be commercially unreasonable and absurd to suggest the charterer should not indemnify the disponent owner against the consequences of an order to discharge without production of the original bills of lading.Mis-delivery claims can arise many years after the cargo was discharged and are not always subject to the usual one-year time limit applicable to cargo claims. Therefore, the IG approved standard wordings do not contain any explicit time limit on the validity of the indemnity, and the inclusion of a validity period should be resisted.In The Songa Winds (2018) the governing voyage charter stated that any letter of indemnity would only be valid for three months from delivery. Fortunately for the shipowner, this validity period was not included in the LOI when it was issued and so the LOI did not expire after three months. The Court of Appeal did note, however, that the charterer could have insisted on including the validity period specified in the voyage charter in any LOI.Bypassing the charter chainIn a charter chain, there is no direct contractual relationship between the head owner and a sub-charterer. This means that, ordinarily, a head owner cannot seek to enforce a right of indemnity granted by a sub-charterer to an intermediate charter. This can put a head owner in a difficult position if its charterer is insolvent when a mis-delivery claim arises.Under English law, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows a third party to enforce a term of contract which purports to confer a benefit on them. The IG approved LOI form provides that the issuer will indemnify “you, your servants and agents” for losses sustained by delivering cargo without production of an original bill of lading.In The Laemthong Glory in 2005 the Court held a shipowner could enforce an LOI issued on those terms by the receiver to an insolvent charterer because the word “agent” indicated an intention to benefit the shipowner. The same result occurred in The Jag Ravi in 2012 where the LOI was issued by the receiver to “the owners/ disponent owners/ charterers”.The International Group is currently reviewing its approved form LOI wordings and revised forms are likely to be issued in the near future.
返回
