返回列表 回复 发帖

因款项涉嫌OFAC制裁而延误租金支付导致的纠纷咨询

大家好!
有个案子咨询大家的意见。我司TCT租了一条俄罗斯船东的船,第一期租金和油款是收到发票后1个小时内付的,通过香港的银行,因为我司付款银行关于OFAC制裁相关调查耽误几天,但在船舶靠泊前已经跟我司付款银行和付款银行中间行确认,已经到达船东收款银行的中间行。但船东一直没收到钱,拒绝靠泊,拖了4天才收到钱,船东才同意靠泊。这4天可否算off-hire?
在和船东理论的过程中,对方提到 The Afovos [1983] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 335 判例,我在网上一直找不到。请问哪位同仁手上有?能不能发给我下,谢谢!
The charter for the Afovos was on the New York Produce form with an added anti-technicality clause (Clause 31) which provided:” when hire is due and not received the Owners, before exercising the option of withdrawing the vessel from the Charter-Party, will give Charterers forty-eight hours notice, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays excluded and will not withdraw the vessel if the hire is paid within these forty-eight hours”. Hire was due on 14 June. The charterers’ bank in Italy intended to remit the funds in good time by telex transfer to the owners’ bank in London. Due to an un-notified change of telex number by the owners’ bank and a failure by the charterers’ bank to check the answerback, the telex transfer did not reach the owners’ bank. At 16 40 hours on 14 June the owners’ agent telexed the charterers:” owners have instructed us that in case we do not receive the hire which is due today, to give charterers notice as per cl.31 of the charterparty for withdrawal of the vessel from their service.” It was held by the Court of Appeal that:
(1)        There was no default in payment of hire by the charterers until after midnight on the due date;
(2)        On a true construction of Clause 31, the 48 hours notice could not be given until after the last moment for payment;
(3)        In any event, the notice was not a good notice because it was conditional in terms.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was affirmed by the House of Lords.
The Afovos [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 562 (C.A.) and [1983] 1 Lloyd’s Ref. 335 (H.L.)
返回列表