第十章 质量担保

1. SAJ 与 NEWBUILDCON 的有关条文

这在 SAJ 是 Article IX 如下：

“1 Guarantee:
Subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth, the BUILDER undertakes to remedy, free of
charge to the BUYER, and defects in the VESSEL which are due to the defective material
and/or bad workmanship on the part of the BUILDER and/or its subcontractors, provided that
the defects are discovered within a period of twelve months after the date of delivery of the
VESSEL and a notice thereof is duly given to the BUILDER as hereinafter provided.
For the purpose of this Article, the VESSEL shall include her hull, machinery, equipment and
gear, but excludes any parts for the VESSEL which have been supplied by or on behalf of the
BUYER.

2 Notice of Defects:
The BUYER shall notify the BUILDER in writing, or by cable confirmed in writing, of any
defects for which claim is made under this guarantee as promptly as possible after discovery
thereof. The BUYER’s written notice shall describe the nature and extent of the defects. The
BUILDER shall have no obligation for any defects discovered prior to the expiry date of the
said twelve (12) months period, unless notice of such defects is received by the BUILDER no
later than thirty (30) days after such expiry date.

3 Remedy of Defects:
(a) The BUILDER shall remedy at its expense, any defects against which the VESSEL is
guaranteed under this Article, by making all necessary repairs or replacements at the
Shipyard.

(b) However, if it is impractical to bring the Vessel to the Shipyard, the BUYER may cause
the necessary repairs or replacements to be made elsewhere which is deemed suitable for the
purpose, provided that, in such event, the BUILDER may forward or supply replacement
parts or materials to the VESSEL, unless forwarding or supplying thereof to the VESSEL
would impair or delay the operation or working schedule of the VESSEL. In the event that the
BUILDER proposes to cause the necessary repairs or replacements to be made to the
VESSEL at any other shipyard or works than the Shipyard, the BUYER shall first, but in all
events as soon as possible, give the BUILDER notice in writing or by cable confirmed in
writing of the time and place such repairs will be made, and if the VESSEL is not thereby
delayed, or her operation or working schedule is not thereby impaired, the BUILDER shall
have the right to verify by its own representative(s) the nature and extent of the defects
complained of. The BUILDER shall, in such case, promptly advise the BUYER by cable,
after such examination has been completed, of its acceptance or rejection of the defects as
ones that are covered by the guarantee herein provided. Upon the BUILDER’s acceptance of
the defects as justifying remedy under this Article, or upon the award of the arbitration so
determining, the BUILDER shall immediately pay to the BUYER for such repairs or
replacements a sum equal to the reasonable cost of making the same repairs or replacements
in the Shipyard.

(c) In any case, the VESSEL shall be taken at the BUYER’s cost and responsibility to the
place elected, ready in all respects for such repairs or replacements.

(d) Any dispute under this Article shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with the
provisions of Article XIII hereof.

4 Extent of BUILDER’s Responsibility

(a) The BUILDER shall have no responsibility for any other defects whatsoever in the
VESSEL than the defects specified in Paragraph 1 of this Article. Nor shall the BUILDER in
any circumstances be responsible or liable for any consequential or special losses, damages or
expenses including, but not limited to, loss of time, loss of profit or earning or demurrage
directly or indirectly occasioned to the BUYER by reason of the defects specified in
paragraph 1 of the Article or due to repairs or other works done to the VESSEL to remedy
such defects.

(b) The BUILDER shall not be responsible for any defects in any part of the Vessel which
may subsequent to delivery of the VESSEL have been replaced or in any way repaired by any
other contractor, or for any defects which have been caused or aggravated by omission or
improper use and maintenance of the VESSEL on the part of the BUYER, its servants or
agents or by ordinary wear and tear or by any other circumstances beyond the control of the
BUILDER.

(c) The Guarantee contained as hereinabove in this Article replaces and excludes any other
liability, guarantee, warranty and/or condition imposed or implied by the law, customary,
statutory or otherwise, by reason of the construction and sale of the VESSEL by the
BUILDER for and to the BUYER.

5 Guarantee Engineer:
The BUILDER shall have the right to appoint a Guarantee Engineer to serve on the VESSEL
for such portion of the guarantee period as the BUILDER may decide. The BUYER and its
employees shall give the Guarantee Engineer full cooperation in carrying out his duties as the
representative of the BUILDER on board the VESSEL. The BUYER shall accord the
Guarantee Engineer the treatment comparable to the VESSEL’s Chief Engineer and shall
provide him with accordance and subsistence at no cost of the BUILDER and/or the
Guarantee Engineer.

The BUYER shall pay to the BUILDER the sum of … per month as a compensation for a part
of the costs and charges to be borne by the BUILDER in connection with the Guarantee
Engineer and shall also pay the expenses of the repatriation to Tokyo, Japan, by air on
termination of his service.

Pertaining to the detailed particulars of this Paragraph, an agreement will be made according
to this effect between the parties hereto upon delivery of the VESSEL.”、

在 NEWBUILDCON，有关的内容在第 35 与 36 条文如下：
“35 Builder’s Guarantee
(a) The Builder shall guarantee the Vessel against any Defects (see Definitions) provided
such Defects are:
(i) Discovered within the number of months stated in Box 20 (hereinafter ‘the Guarantee
Period’) after delivery of the Vessel in accordance with Clause 28 (Delivery); and

(ii) notice thereof is given to the Builder as soon as reasonably possible after the discovery
thereof and latest thirty (30) running days after the expiry of the Guarantee Period describing
such Defects so far as reasonably practical.

(hereinafter called ‘Guarantee Defects’)

(b) The Builder shall make any necessary repairs or replacements to rectify any Guarantee
Defects or damage to the Vessel caused as a direct and immediate consequence of such
Guarantee Defects. Such repairs and replacements shall be made at the shipyard at the
Builder’s cost and expense.

(c) The Buyer shall have the right to arrange for the necessary repairs to rectify any
Guarantee Defects or damage to the Vessel caused as a direct and immediate consequence of
such Guarantee Defects to be made elsewhere or obtain any necessary replacement parts and
materials:
(i) if it is impractical to bring the Vessel to the Shipyard; or

(ii) if the Builder cannot supply necessary replacement parts and materials without
impairing or delaying the operation or working of the Vessel;

(iii) In the event that the Buyer makes the necessary repairs or replacements at any other
shipyard or works other than the Shipyard, the Buyer shall first, but as soon as possible, give
the Builder notice of the time and place such repairs will be made. The Builder shall have the
right, without prejudice, to inspect through its own representative the nature and extent of the
Guarantee Defects to be replaced or repaired. The Builder shall, in such case, promptly advise
the Buyer in writing, after such examination has been completed, of its acceptance or
rejection of such Guarantee Defects as ones that are covered by the guarantee.

(iv) The Builder shall pay the Buyer in the currency stated in Box 9 the reasonable cost and
expenses of such repairs or replacements.

(v) Where applicable, the Buyer shall return replaced parts to the Builder at the Builder’s
request and cost and expense provided the Builder makes such request at the time of the
replacement. In the event that they are the subject of a dispute under Clause 42 (Dispute
Resolution), the Builder shall hold the replaced parts available for inspection by the Buyer.
Upon their replacement, the ownership of replaced parts shall revert to the Builder.

(d) The Builder guarantees repairs or replacements to the Vessel made under sub-clause (b)
above for an additional Guarantee Period of the number of months stated in Box 21 from the
date of completion of such repairs or replacements provided such work has been performed
by the Builder or its Sub-contractors. The additional Guarantee Period shall, however, not end
on a date earlier than the end of the original Guarantee Period for any such item.

(e) If, as a result of the guarantee works, the Vessel has been lying idle continuously for a
period in excess of thirty (30) days, the Guarantee Period shall be extended by the total
number of such days (counting from the first day the Vessel is idle) that fall within the
Guarantee Period, whether or not other work was carried out during such period.

(f) Without prejudice to any other rights the Buyer may have under this Contract, following
the expiry of the Guarantee Period or in the event that the Builder is in breach of its obligation
to rectify Guarantee Defects in accordance with this Clause, the Builder shall at the Buyer’s
request assign (to the extent to which it may validly do so) to the Buyer, or as the Buyer may
direct, the right, title and interest of the Builder in and to all guarantees or warranties given by
the Sub-contractors or suppliers of any of the materials or equipment used in the construction
of the Vessel.

36 Guarantee Engineer
(a) The Buyer shall have the right to require the Builder to, or the Builder may, appoint a
Guarantee Engineer to attend onboard the Vessel for such portion of the Guarantee Period as
the Buyer may reasonably require. The Buyer and its employees shall provide the Guarantee
Engineer with full co-operation to enable the Buyer to obtain the most efficient use of the
Vessel’s machinery and equipment.

(b) The Buyer shall provide the Guarantee Engineer with accommodation and provisions to
a standard comparable to the Vessel’s Chief Engineer, at no cost to the Builder. The Buyer
shall pay the Builder the monthly lump sum stated in Box 24, or pro rata thereof for part of a
month, as compensation for part of the cost and charges to be borne by the Builder in
connection with the Guarantee Engineer. The Buyer shall also arrange and pay for the
transportation of the Guarantee Engineer between the Vessel and his home country.

(c) The Guarantee Engineer shall, at all times and in all respects, be deemed to be the
employee of the Builder.

(d) If the Buyer decides not to exercise its right to require the Builder to provide a
Guarantee Engineer on board the Vessel, this shall not prejudice the Buyer’s rights under the
provisions of Clause 35 (Builder’s Guarantee).”

这担保期限发现的船舶缺陷与修理的问题是包括了几个方面， 如下：

2. 担保的范围

造船合约通常约定有一个交船后的 12 个月的担保期，这与岸上买电器或手表也有一个
担保期可去作出免费修理或更换的做法一样。在此期间内所发现的船舶、机器与设备的
缺陷由船厂负责将其修妥或更换。条文通常说明船厂负责的只是修理费，不包括其他的
结果性损失（consequential loss），例如是船舶无法营运带来的损失或时间损失。条文
也会说明这是船厂唯一作出的担保，并排除所有其他合约与法律（例如是 1979 年《货
物销售法》）下船厂会要承担对船舶状况的担保。这种安排对买卖双方都有一定的好处，
正如 May 大法官在 BHP v British Steel (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277 所说如下：
“… additional rights and obligations requiring the contractor or supplier to undertake
additional work to rectify defects which appear within a defined time after completion usually
without additional payment. They may be seen as benefiting both parties. The employer is
entitled to have the defect rectified without having to engage and pay another contractor to
carry out the rectification; the contractor or supplier is entitled to carry out the rectification
himself which may normally be expected to be less expensive for him than having to
reimburse the cost to the employer of having it done by others. Without a clause of this kind,
the contractor or supplier would normally have no right to do work after completion….”

这 12 个月开始计算的一天就是指双方签订“交接备忘录” （protocol of Delivery and

Acceptance）的时候。在 The “Seta Maru” (2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367，Thomas 大法官说：
“In my view, acceptance in the first line of art. IX meant acceptance of the vessel by the
buyers on delivery by the builder, accompanied by the protocol of delivery and acceptance.
This was the date from which the guarantee period was to run.”

3. 担保的是一些什么缺陷？

很多造船合约，例如 SAJ 格式，担保只针对船东接船后 12 个月内所发现的缺陷

（defects）。这一个担保不针对在交船前已经存在但没有被修妥的缺陷。这种情况会发
生在船东因为航运市场好而急于接收船舶，或加上船厂因为自己其他的安排或在该造
船合约下已经到了面临被船东取消合约的最后期限（drop dead day）而不肯去修妥或不
认同船东所提的交船前缺陷，等。这种千变万化的情况不会在造船合约内有所规定，所
以针对这种交船前已经发现的缺陷，是要船厂与船东之间另去谈判与约定怎样去修妥 ，
或是根据普通法的默示地位，例如是损失的计算。遇到交船前的缺陷，如果船厂愿意去
修妥后才交船，但船东急于接船而剥夺了船厂修理的机会，这一来也是根据普通法可
以去以弃权与禁止翻供的道理，不让船东事后向船厂提出索赔。

SAJ 格式针对缺陷没有作解释，但明显就应该包括建造过程中因为工艺或物料不妥而
导致的缺陷。已经说过，SAJ 没有明示去针对设计不妥所造成的问题。这就变了是要看
法律的默示地位了，而在英国法律而言，看来对船厂的地位并不友善，这方面请看已
经 介 绍 过 的 The “Elf” (1985) LMLN No. 145 ， Aktiebolaget Gotaverken v. Westminster
Corporation of Monrovia and Another (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505 等。

在 NEWBUILDCON 就明确得多了，它在第 35 (a)条文说明船厂担保任何船舶的缺陷，

只要是这些缺陷符合两个要求：（一）是在担保期限内发现；（二）是及时给船厂通
知。另在 NEWBUILDCON 一开始就给了一些措辞明确的定义，其中包括“缺陷”一词
是针对设计不妥，如下：
“‘Defects’ means any deficiencies or defects in the design, construction, material and/or
workmanship on the part of the Builder or its sub-contractors.”
看来，如果在一些不涉及船厂自己设计的船舶（例如是在中国建造天然气液体船舶，
就是购买法国的设计，要支付庞大的专利费），船厂如果是使用 NEWBUILDCON 的
话也必须要把设计的责任与风险排除。这种条文在 John Moodie & Co and others Pursuers
against Coastal Marine (Boatbuilders) Ltd Defenders (2003) SCLR 56，有关 12 个月担保的
条文中第 2 部分是如下：
“12.2 The contractor(船厂) shall not be responsible for:
(a) damage caused by fair wear and tear, lack of maintenance, alteration or addition to the
vessel by the purchaser(船东) or negligent operation of the vessel; or
(b) faults arising from the construction design with the exception of items designed by the
contractor or any sub-contractor.”

上述条文中请留意(b)的一句说明船厂对并非是他或者分包商设计的缺陷不负责任。

4. 针对船底的缺陷或更换机器/配件

通常担保期有 12 个月，这应该是足够。船舶在这段时间充分营运的话，她的缺陷通常
都能在此期限内发现，如果没有发现，说明船舶质量基本应该没问题。但这里会有一些
特殊的情况，会需要去另外谈判并作出相应的延长。这是订约自由，完全是允许。例如
在 NEWBUILDCON，担保期就是任由订约双方去同意，并加在 Box 20。但也有说明是
如果双方没有去约定担保期的长短，就以 12 个月为准。

4.1 船底的缺陷

有些造船合约会说明船底的缺陷的担保期就超过 12 个月，这是因为新船交船之后船东
未必会在 12 个月之内入干坞检查船底，就算他想检查也可能找不到空干坞。这一来，
船东就会遇上麻烦例如像是 The “Elf” (1985) LMLN No. 145，船东是在担保期过了 6 个
星期之后才入干坞，发觉螺旋桨腐蚀的严重问题。该造船合约有关 12 个月担保的条文
是一般造船合约都会有的，如下：
“Article 14—Warranty of Quality
(1) Guarantee of material and workmanship
The builder will guarantee for a period of 12 months following acceptance by the buyer of the
vessel, the hull and machinery, all parts and equipment thereof, that are manufactured or
furnished by the builder under this contract … against all defects due to defective material
and/or poor workmanship by the builder, and not due to the negligence or other improper acts
or omissions on the part of the buyer …
(2) Notice of defects
The buyer … shall notify the builder in writing … as promptly as possible of any defect for
which claim is to be made under this guarantee. … The builder shall have no obligation under
this guarantee for any defects discovered prior to the expiry date of the guarantee, unless
notice of such defects is received by the builder not later than 30 days after such expiry date.
(3) Extent of builder’s liability
The builder shall be liable to the buyer for damages caused by the defects specified in
paragraph 1) above, provided that such liability of the builder shall be limited to damage
occasioned within the guarantee period specified in paragraph 1) above. The builder shall be
under no obligation with respect to defects discovered after the expiration of the guarantee
period specified above …
(4) Remedy of defects
The builder shall remedy at his expense any defects against which the vessel … is guaranteed
under this Article by making all necessary repairs and replacement at the builder’s yard unless
the vessel cannot be conveniently brought there.”

作为买方的船东向船厂提出索赔，但在仲裁以及在高院都败诉，因为他晚了给通知 。
Bingham 大法官认为上述条文之 14(1)是船厂提供给船东 12 个月担保期，而针对的是所
有缺陷，不论是来自物料、工艺或是设计的不妥。而第 14(3)条文说明买方没有及时给通
知的话，会带来严重的结果，也是说得非常明确，就是“船厂没有责任针对在担保期
之 后 发 现 的 缺 陷 ” （ The builder shall be under no obligation with respect to defects
discovered after the expiration of the guarantee period specified above.）。换言之，这样的
文字/措辞说明要在担保期内发现缺陷并作出及时的通知，才是船厂唯一要负责的情况 。
Bingham 大法官认为上述文字是极度明确，所以螺旋桨的损坏在担保期后才发现就没
有可能去提出索赔了（The language was plain in the extreme and since there a finding that
the damage to the propeller was not discovered until after the guarantee period has expired,
that ruled out any claim altogether.）。

正因为发现船底损坏可能需要更长的时间，买方可以在与船厂谈判合约条文时将关于
船底损坏的担保期延长，超过 12 个月。

4.2 担保期内替换了的机器/配件的担保期

同样道理，如果在担保期内船厂对发现的缺陷作出了修理并替换了机器 /配件等等，针
对这新换上的机器/配件买方也应在订合约时争取额外的担保期，例如是更换的机器/配
件另有 6 个月的担保期，或更换的机器/配件与整艘船舶总共有 18 个月的担保期上限不
等。这是订约自由，买方可以在合约内与船厂谈判与争取。毕竟，这种替换会是在 12 个
月担保期很后期的时候才发生。SAJ 标准格式合约没有去针对，但 NEWBUILDCON 就
有 Box 21 让双方去同意针对这方面的额外担保期，并在第 35 (d)条文有去解释，并在
最后的一句说明这额外担保期（例如是 6 个月）是无论如何不会在早于原来 12 个月担
保期到期前终结。这是因为替换的机器/配件也会发生在担保期内的早期时间，例如是
交船后的 1 个月就发生。如果去加上 6 个月，岂非是针对这方面的机器/配件，总的担保
期不是 12 个月而变成 7 个月了。这就违反了双方去延长担保期而非是去缩短这 12 个月
的本意。

4.3 担保修理超出 30 天的情况

SAJ 标准格式合约没有针对这种情况，但 NEWBUILDCON 的第 35 (e)条文有去特别针

对一种情况，就是如果担保修理（guarantee work）是一个重大工程，导致了船舶滞留
（这可以是滞留在港口或是在一个修理厂的干坞，等）超出了连续 30 天，这原来 12
个月的担保期也要去延长相应的滞留时间。这比较细的规定看来的确也是公道。

4.4 抛老锚或船东自己的原因造成在港口长期滞留

如果遇上上述的情况，也会令这 12 个月担保期失去实际价值。因为船舶根本没有去营
运的话也就发现不了船舶与机器的缺陷。但 SAJ 与 NEWBUILDCON 都没有针对这种情
况，毕竟，这是船东自己的商业决定或营运风险，船厂是管不了。如果船厂同意船东可
以去因为这些原因把担保期相应延长，风险也会很大。例如抛老锚，可以是好几年的时
间。也根据船东对抛老锚船舶的保养水平，会是造成对船舶不同程度的损耗，而且很难
确定到底是担保的缺陷还是这方面损耗带来的缺陷。反正就会有后果是交船后几年，12
个月的担保期才开始起算，因为船东决定把抛老锚的船舶重新投入营运，这肯定不是
船厂所愿意承担的责任。

4.5 分包商/供应商提供给船厂的担保

船舶的建造总免不了要涉及分包商或者供应商，而他们的合约关系是与船厂而不是与
船东。他们的担保期限也不会是与船厂给船东的一样，例如只是局限在交船后 12 个月
内。更有可能是船厂与分包商或供应商之间没有规定什么合约的时效。这就会导致了法
律所默示的时效（针对索赔），例如在中国是 2 年或根据英国法是 6 年之久。这一来，
就会存在造船合约的 12 个月担保期已经届满，但分包商或供应商的担保或是索赔仍是
有效。这一来，船东可能还有索赔的一线希望，就是直接去向分包商或供应商提出要求
有关合约下的担保或是提出法律的索赔。这里有几方面的考虑，首先就是分包商或供应
商是否值得船东去向他索赔。简单举一个例子，中国一个船厂承包工作给一位油漆小工，
就不值得去向他索赔，但如果供应商是大的跨国公司，例如是由 BMW 提供的主机，
这就完全值得了。

至于以什么基础来起诉，可以有几方面的考虑。第一就是侵权，这就主要以疏忽为主。
以侵权作为基础提出的局限是在英国法下只能索赔实质人身与财产的损失，但不包括
经济损失（如在出事前发觉问题并提前去修妥的费用）。这方面在本书第二章之第 9 段
有详细介绍，不再重复，反正这一个基础并不理想。

第二就是根据一些立法的责任，因为现在有很多管辖权会有立法针对产品责任。这一个
基础的局限是要看有关立法的内容，例如立法只针对消费者的保护，但不适用在船东。

第三就是要靠合约的关系，通常会是比较优越，例如合约法是允许经济损失的索赔，
除非另有明示条文去排除或限制金额。而明示条文这方面就会是千变万化，因为有订约
自由。比如说针对担保缺陷的修理，而担保的性质是不理会这一个缺陷是否是由生产商
所导致，这是靠合约的关系才会有。但问题是船东与分包商之间隔了一个船厂，可以说
是没有直接的合约关系。这里可能可以通过英国 1999 年《Contract (Third Party) Act》
（香港也有同样的立法），只要在船厂与分包商/供应商之间的合约有提到有关工作或
者设备的受益人是船东。这一来船东就可以直接以他自己的名义向承建商或供应商根据
有关合约提出起诉，要求提供担保的修理。但如果是没有这样的合约条文去惠及船东，
船东就必须去取得船厂同意，去把可以向分包商/供应商索赔的权利转让给船东。在 SAJ
中没有这样的条文，但在 NEWBUILDCON 中有第 35 (f)条如下：
“Without prejudice to any other rights the Buyer may have under this Contract, following
the expiry of the Guarantee Period or in the event that the Builder is in breach of its obligation
to rectify Guarantee Defects in accordance with this Clause, the Builder shall at the Buyer’s
request assign (to the extent to which it may validly do so) to the Buyer, or as the Buyer may
direct, the right, title and interest of the Builder in and to all guarantees or warranties given by
the Sub-contractors or suppliers of any of the materials or equipment used in the construction
of the Vessel.”（不影响买方在本造船所拥有的其他权利，在担保期届满后，或者船厂
违反了他的责任去修妥担保缺陷，船厂就要在买方的要求之下去把分包商或者供应商
给船厂的担保/保证去转让给船东[如果船厂能够有效地去这样做]或者让买方享有船厂
在该些担保/保证下的权利，所有权或者利益。）

上述条文稍微需要补充解释的只有两点，一是“如果船厂能够有效地去这样做”这一
句话是针对船厂与分包商 /供应商之间的合约会有可能去禁止转让（ prohibition of
assignment）；二是也因为可能有禁止转让，所以上述条文多加了一种做法就是买方 /
船东可去享有船厂在该些担保/保证下的权利，所有权或者利益。这就可以不必通过转
让而通过让买方以船厂的名义向分包商或者供应商提出索赔。

5. 担保期内的通知

对船厂而言，船东一发现缺陷需要尽早给他通知的原因是完全可以了解。因为除非船厂
有担保工程师（guarantee engineer）在船上，他是完全不会知道交了船之后船舶出现什
么缺陷。固然会有特殊的情况是船厂自己知道建造的船舶有问题，但故意隐瞒并去交船
给船东。这种指控在 The “Seta Maru” (2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 有出现，但这毕竟是十分
罕见的情况，所以船厂有必要知道他将要去支付修理费的缺陷到底是否属于担保条文
范围内。这是因为船舶有了缺陷，即使她还是新船，缺陷未必就是来自建造的问题（主
要是工艺或物料不妥）。有可能缺陷是来自船员的操作不当或疏忽，或船东曾经去自己
改装船舶，更或是来自其他船舶在营运中所面对的各种风险，如海上风险，火灾，装
卸不当，等等。这种问题所带来的损坏应该是船东自己的事情，也通常可以通过船舶保
险向保险商索赔，反正就是与船厂无关。这些方面船厂只能通过船东及时给通知并让船
厂派出人员去检查才能明确下来，而且即使是确认属于担保范围内的缺陷，船厂也可
以及时针对修理的办法参与决定。

由于订约自由，对担保期内发现缺陷以及及时作出通知给船厂的严重性完全是根据合
约的写法。如果只是泛泛地说要给通知，没有说明如果欠缺的话会带来什么后果，这个
通知就是没有什么大不了，即使不给通知也不代表船东无法向船厂索赔。换言之，一定
要讲后果，特别是严重的后果写得清清楚楚。

不妨去作一个明显的比较，在 BIMCO 的 NEWBUILDCON，第 35(a)(ii)条文有关担保

期内对发现的缺陷要给船厂通知是说：
“notice thereof is given to the Builder as soon as reasonably possible after the discovery
thereof and latest thirty (30) running days after the expiry of the Guarantee Period describing
such Defects so far as reasonably practical.”

这里涉及了发现缺陷后的一个最早与最迟期限去通知船厂。最早是“尽可能合理的快”
（as soon as reasonably possible），在 SAJ 也是类似字眼“尽可能快”（as promptly as
possible）。这种措辞显然是有一定的伸缩性，毕竟船舶缺陷的发现会是明确（例如机
件停顿或故障）或是隐蔽（例如是焊接问题：The “Seta Maru” [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
367）。笔者也见过造船合约去规定了一个明确的期限，要求船东作出通知，例如是
“The buyer shall notify the seller in writing within ten (10) days after any defect, failure or
breakdown has been discovered or occurred.”

这些最早通知的要求都没有提到如果没有这样做会有什么后果，根据普通法船东应该
有机会被船厂索赔。 船东给船厂的通知过了时间，这是违约，它所带来的损失船厂是
可以索赔。例如船东如果及时给出通知，船厂就有机会以较便宜的价格为船东修妥（比
方说船舶较早时的经营一度去过船厂所在地的港口，可让船厂自己进行修理）。而晚了
并且是违约下给的通知，由于造成修理价格的提高或船舶营运为船厂带来不方便等，
船厂可以向船东索赔。但这种损失不一定有，而且与船厂因为晚了通知而不负责任的严
重后果相比还是有天壤之别。

至于最迟的通知，根据 NEWBUILDCON 就是担保期的 12 个月再加上 30 天，如果船东

错过了，就会有严重的后果。这种严重后果可以是在条文中写明，而即使不去写明也会
有同样严重后果。因为在 SAJ 的 Article IX (1)说明船厂只负责担保期内发现的缺陷，另
在 Article IX (4)(a)强调船厂不负责任何其他缺陷，除了 Article IX (1)内的。显然，如果
在担保期外发现并作出通知的缺陷就被有关条文排除在外了。在 NEWBUILDCON 的第
37 (b)条文是：
“(b) Liability for Defects discovered after delivery
Except to the extent expressly provided in Clause 35 (Builder’s Guarantee), the Builder shall
have no liability in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty or otherwise
for …”它加上第 35 条文说明船厂担保船舶缺陷是要在担保期内发现，也应是与 SAJ
有同样的效果。

接下去再给一个例子是不同文字/措辞有关担保期内对发现的缺陷要给船厂通知，但措
辞上明确说明通知的内容以及没有做到会带来的严重后果，好像 The “Elf” (1985)
LMLN No. 145 先例一样。该条文是如下：
“The BUYER shall notify the SELLER in writing, or by telex confirmed in writing, as
promptly as possible, after discovery of any defect or deviations for which a claim is made
under this guarantee. The BUYER’s written notice shall describe the nature of the defect and
the extent of the damage caused thereby. The SELLER shall have no obligation under this
guarantee for any defects discovered prior to the expiry date of the guarantee, unless notice of
such defects, is received by the SELLER not later than thirty (30) days after such expiry date.
Telexed advice with brief details explaining the nature of such defect and extent of damage
within thirty (30) days after such expiry date and that a claim is forthcoming will be sufficient
compliance with the requirement as to time.”

上述的通知条文很明显将船东没有依照的严重后果讲得清清楚楚，就是船厂将
（shall）不必对担保期内发现的缺陷负责。此外，它对通知的要求也写得很清楚，例如
必须是给船厂，必须是文书，必须描述缺陷的性质与引起的损坏。

另一个要介绍的先例就是 A/B Gotaverken v. Westminster Corporation of Monrovia (1971)

2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505，该案例有关改装船舶合约（conversion contract）的第 13 条通知条
文是要求通知以文书作出，而且要全面地描述（fully specify），如下：
“… Claims on account of asserted defects or deficiencies of material or workmanship shall
always be given immediately after such defects or deficiencies have been discovered.
Where the customer has not given notice prior to the departure of the ship from the shipyard,
the shipyard shall be discharged from all liability for the delivery, save that such hidden
defects or deficiencies of material or workmanship as the customer obviously could not detect
or should not have detected prior to delivery, may be claimed within [six] months after the
delivery.
Claims relating to the invoice shall be made within 14 days from receipt thereof.
All claims shall be made in writing and shall be fully specified.”

船厂（Gotaverken）是在 1967 年 10 月 25 日交船给船东，但在第一个航次开往美国东

岸的卸港才发觉舱盖严重漏水并导致货损，船长在 12 月 7 日以电话首次通知船东。船
东第一次以文书通知船厂有关这方面的问题或索赔是在 1968 年 1 月 3 日，但内容只是
一般性（general terms）的，相等于是通知船厂将会有一个可能的索赔。到了 1968 年 2
月 20 日，船东才首次告诉船厂一个比较详细描述的索赔（specified claim），告知船厂
有关美国 Sun 船厂的修理及费用，但没有提到供应给船舶该舱的帆布（ tarpaulins），
而这些帆布的费用比修理费更高。到了 2 月 23 日，船东把 Sun 船厂的修理费帐目表转
给了船厂。但由始至终船东没有进一步描述其他的费用，但上述节录的有关条文最后一
句说明索赔必须是“全面地描述”（fully specified）。所以，针对只有 6 个月的通知时
效，Donaldson 大法官判是只有 Sun 船厂的修理费是在时效内，但其他的索赔（如供应
帆布的费用，货损等）都是过了时间，说：
“In my judgment, the only claim which was made in time was that for the cost of the Sun
Yard repairs. No claim was made which included the cost of tarpaulins, although this item
was larger than the Sun Yard account. No claim was made in time for the cost of replacing the
hatch covers with new covers. No claim was made in respect of cargo claims, although the
possibility of a future claim was indicated. I am told that the repairs effected by the Sun Yard
would have cost less if effected by Gotaverken, and Gotaverken’s notional charge for this
work therefore sets a limit on this claim. Any claim for detention is barred by regulation 11
(6) (这第 11 [6]条文是说明船厂对担保缺陷带来的结果性损失或者时间损失不负责任). I
need not consider the interesting question of whether cargo claims are ‘indirect damages’ in
terms of regulation 11 (6), as, quite apart from the fact that no claim was made in time, ...”

上述案例显示了有关合约针对担保通知必须包括什么内容就一定要严格依照。

6. 担保期内发现缺陷的修理办法

如果在担保期内发现缺陷，而且及时与准确地给了船厂通知，就存在船厂要去修妥的
问题。显然，船厂最希望的就是该船舶能够回来让他自己来进行修理 ，因为不会有额
外的费用。而且船厂配件/零件充足，如果有这方面需要的话会方便很多。所以，回去船
厂修理是大前提，这在 SAJ 的 Article IX (3)(a)有说明如下：
“The BUILDER shall remedy, at its expense, any defects against which the VESSEL is
guaranteed under this Article, by making all necessary repairs or replacements at the
Shipyard.”

6.1 船厂自己修理或是在船厂以外其他地方修理
6.1.1 船东选择船厂以外的修理地点会出现的利益冲突

发现了担保缺陷，如果任由船东去找船厂以外其他地方修理，总会有机会是十分昂贵。
如果由船厂自己去修理，非但不会昂贵，甚至只是个成本的费用，而且还可以自己主
导，例如是怎样修理与修理的快慢。 Evans 大法官在 Pearce & High Limited v. Baxter
(1999) BLR 101 说：
“The cost of employing a third party repairer is likely to be higher than the cost to the
contractor of doing the work himself would have been. So the right to return in order to repair
the defect is valuable to him.”

通常一些修理厂针对修理的报价，除了金额以外还包括了估计的修理时间。考虑到造船
合约中船厂一般都不会负责修理的时间损失，只肯负责修理费用（在 SAJ 标准格式合
约中是 Article IX [4][a]，在 NEWBUILDCON 是第 37 [b][ii]条文），船东在今天航运市
场好景的情况下，肯定会想去找一个修理时间最短的修理厂，特别是好像
NEWBUILDCON 的第 35 (c)(iv)条文说明船厂要支付所有合理的修理费用。这种严重的
利益矛盾，有点像船东与船壳保险商之间的利益冲突一样，就是船壳保险商不负责时
间损失，但他要赔付合理修理费用。所以在英国的标准船壳保险条文 Institute Time
Clauses (Hulls) 1/10/83 中，就有一条对保险商十分重要的条文，名为 Tender Clause，它
是在第 10 条文，内容包括了保险商有权决定船舶开到什么地方去进行修理，并有权否
定船东选择的修理厂。显然，保险商选择修理厂一定是考虑价钱方面而不会去理会修理
时间长短。另有条文说明如果船东不依照这一条文的规定，修理费用的赔偿就要去扣减
15%。这一来，如果船东认为修理必须要快，因为时间损失更加严重的话，他大可以去
选择一个保险商不批准的修理厂，而损失的就是保险商会对修理费扣减 15%后才作出
赔偿。

这样看来，NEWBUILDCON 针对担保修理是对船厂欠缺了一些必要的保障。在订约自
由下，船厂大可以去对 NEWBUILDCON 作出修改去加入一些保障，这包括是好像 SAJ
的 Article IX (3)(b)，就是在其他修理厂的修理费用，船厂负责的部分只是局限在船厂
自己进行修理的合理费用。这就逼使船东在选择修理厂的时候不能光考虑修理快慢，也
要兼顾修理费的高低，因为有可能自己要承担一部分的修理费。

又或是，船东去选择其他修理厂的情况下，只能去局限在某一些金额低的修理，否则
船厂就有权要求船东让船厂自己进行修理，或由船厂指定的一些其他船厂修理（可以
估计是修理费用低，但不理会修理时间长短）。这种条文在 John Moodie & Co and
others Pursuers against Coastal Marine (Boatbuilders) Ltd Defenders (2003) SCLR 56 有出现，
涉及的是一艘渔船的建造，条文如下：“The contractor(船厂) shall have the right to carry
out any rectification work required under clause 12.1 at the shipyard [ie the shipyard in
Eyemouth] or another shipyard nominated by the contractor. The contractor shall meet the
cost of sailing or towing the vessel to the shipyard or such other shipyard including the cost of
fuel, oil, crew and flights, where appropriate. If it is inconvenient for the purchaser(船东) for
the said work to be carried out at the shipyard or at the other shipyard nominated by the
contractor and the cost of the said work is estimated not to exceed £20,000, the said work
may, subject to prior notification of the cost being given to the contractor, be carried out at a
shipyard selected by the purchaser. In the event, the contractor shall pay for said work or, on
demand, reimburse the purchaser for the cost of said work.”。

6.1.2 无法让船厂自己进行修理的情况

已经提到过，担保修理最好是船厂自己去进行，但这通常不可行。原因是多方面的，也
不一定出自船东。例如船厂本身有其他安排，例如干坞空不出来但有关的船舶缺陷是在
船底部分。又或是，出现的担保缺陷十分严重，导致了船舶完全失去动力，地点是在远
离中国船厂的北美或南美。如果有关条文允许船厂去强制船东把船舶开回船厂进行修理，
而同时造船合约中有排除了船厂去负责“结果性损失”（consequential loss），就会导
致一种对船东严重不利的情况。就是船东要自己承担十分昂贵的拖轮费用（这一项会属
于结果性损失，Macfadyen 勋爵在 John Moodie & Co and others Pursuers against Coastal
Marine (Boatbuilders) Ltd Defenders (2003) SCLR 56 先例说：“ It seems to me that the
towage charges claimed are plainly losses consequential on machinery failure.”），可能要
拖带 2、3 个月从南美回来中国去让船厂进行修理。这种情况显然是船东不能接受的，所
以有关的条文必须让船东在合理情况下能选择其他的修理厂，例如在北美或南美就近
修理。毕竟，恰当的修理地点很大程度依赖船舶的营运范围。例如船厂是上海江南船厂，
而有关的船舶是一艘经常会回来中国甚至是上海港的散装船。这一来，估计船厂要去安
排该船舶下一次回来中国卸货后去江南船厂修理不会是一件难事。如果船东不合作，例
如不安排时间让船厂去作出修理，这会给船厂一个抗辩的理由（如 Biakh v. Hyundai
[1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 187）或去向船东索赔因为延误修理所产生的额外费用。在上一小
段已经提到的 A/B Gotaverken v. Westminster Corporation of Monrovia (1971) 2 Lloyd’s
Rep. 505，有关的船舶在瑞典的 Gotaverken 船厂交船后，首航从安特卫普装货去美国东
岸，到了卸港发觉海水进舱导致货物损坏。这一来，船舶要去在美国的 Sun 船厂作出对
舱盖的修理。该舱盖在交船给船东的时候实际上有严重的缺陷，但这些缺陷都是潜在的，
导致了船东无法在交船时发现。船舶在 Sun 船厂的修理下仍是无法成功令舱盖水密，这
导致了船舶回航去欧洲时要去另外供应帆布来盖住船舱。之后船舶回到了瑞典的
Gotaverken 船厂，并更换了一个新舱盖才把问题解决。说实在的，遇上这种严重的情况
可能也只有回到原来建造的船厂才会有可能解决，其他的船厂或修理厂顶多也只不过
去做一些暂时的修理。

但会有情况船东无法合理去该建造船舶的船厂进行修理，例如该船舶是一艘专门在美
国或欧洲航行的船舶，交船后根本不会行走中国甚至是亚洲地区，也没有计划去这些
地区。这一来，就必须要允许该船舶去在其他的地方进行修理。另一种情况是即使船舶
会在不久后装货前往中国，但在担保期内发现的缺陷相对严重与影响船舶适航，导致
船级社坚持要作出永久的修理，这又会是无法去让船厂在自己的地方进行修理了。这也
就是 Article IX (3)(b) 第一句话去针对的，就是船东可以在其他他认为是适当的地方修
理船舶：
“However, if it is impractical to bring the VESSEL to the Shipyard, the BUYER may cause
the necessary repairs or replacements to be made elsewhere which is deemed suitable for the
purpose, ….”

如果发生这种情况，即船舶要在其他地方进行修理，而且这种地方的修理厂可能是十
分昂贵的，说实在的在适用 SAJ 标准格式合约的船厂也不必担心，因为在 Article IX
(3)(b)的最后一句说明了船厂要马上支付给船东这些修理费用，但不超过船厂自己去作
出这种修理或更换配件或物料的合理费用（the BUILDER shall immediately pay to the
BUYER for such repairs or replacements a sum equal to the reasonable cost of making the
same repairs or replacements in the Shipyard）。这等于是船厂也不必怕船东在美国或在欧
洲这些非常昂贵的地方进行修理，反正已经去将要给船东的修理费用局限在中国船厂
自己修理的合理费用。船厂如果比起自己去修理仍有损失的话，恐怕就是外汇的损失了。

相比 NEWBUILDCON 的第 35 (b)(iv)条文，它只是说明船厂要赔偿船东的合理修理费
用与使费：“The Builder shall pay the Buyer in the currency stated in Box 9 the reasonable
cost and expenses of such repairs or replacements.”，SAJ 标准格式合约又是十分保护船
厂，因为在 NEWBUILDCON，船东在美国或者欧洲最昂贵的船厂或修理厂进行修理，
是相比中国船厂自己作出同样修理会产生 10 倍 20 倍以上的费用，中国船厂还是要去
全数支付。因为是否合理的修理费用并非是从中国船厂自己的角度去看，而是要整体来
看（例如十分重要的就是船舶营运的需要）。而且，合理一词也应当有相当宽松的解释。

但去让船东自己决定把船舶开回船厂修理是否“不现实”（impractical）（这是在 SAJ
的 Article IX [3][b]与 NEWBUILDCON 的第 35 [c][i]条文）就很容易让船东取巧。因为
好像散装船或油轮的营运完全是由船东自己决定，导致船东很容易就能使得回船厂修
理变为不现实，例如营运的地区，销约期很紧张，等等。就算船东在北美进行了昂贵的
修理，而之后的航次开去上海，本来很容易去让建造船舶的江南船厂进行修理，船东
也很容易去抗辩说在决定去北美修理的时候还没有计划与打算去上海的航次。加上
SAJ 与 NEWBUILDCON 都说明了船厂不负责结果性损失，特别是时间与利润损失（在
SAJ 标准格式合约中是 Article IX [4][a]，在 NEWBUILDCON 是第 37 [b][ii]条文），这
就会导致船东更加不想去原来建造的船厂进行修理，除非该船厂碰巧就在船舶发现担
保缺陷的所在地。看来，船厂如果想鼓励船东多考虑回原船厂进行修理，就应该在造船
合约加上好像 John Moodie & Co and others Pursuers against Coastal Marine (Boatbuilders)
Ltd Defenders (2003) SCLR 56 先例的条文说明船厂除了修理费用外也要支付拖带，开
航去船厂的油耗，船员工资，等。条文是：“The contractor shall meet the cost of sailing
or towing the vessel to the shipyard … including the cost of fuel, oil, crew and flights, where
appropriate.”

6.2 替换配件或物料

在船厂以外的其他地方进行修理的情况下就会有一些其他方面要去针对，如 SAJ 有一
个但书（proviso）就是船厂有权去提供一些配件或物料给船舶，显然这些是针对在船
厂以外进行修理所需要的配件或者物料，除非是提供的时间太长而导致对船舶造成延
误，船厂就会失去这一个权利。该有关条文是在 Article IX (3)(b)的第二句话，如下：
“…provided that, in such event, the BUILDER may forward or supply replacement parts or
materials to the VESSEL, unless forwarding or supplying thereof to the VESSEL would
impair or delay the operation or working schedule of the VESSEL.”

这里涉及了船舶某一些配件或物料可能会是价值高昂，如果任由船东在欧洲或者美国
进行修理而任意安排从其他渠道提供，价格就更加不得了，所以船厂希望由他自己提
供的话就可以控制损失。举一个简单的例子，如果缺陷涉及了主机，该主机在中国也有
许可去建造，例如是 BMW。显然，同样的 BMW 主机在中国建造或在欧洲建造价钱就
会是很不一样。所以，如果主机部分有了缺陷，比如是涡轮增压器，可以通过更换另一
架就解决问题，显然是中国船厂会希望有权利去这样做。会是，即使需要在中国安排把
该涡轮增压器空运去欧洲也会比在当地提供便宜。如果不去这样写明，船东只要是合理
减少损失，船厂就没有办法对船东的索赔提出疑义了。而“合理”是一个相当危险的措
辞，其伸缩性也很大，很难说船东在欧洲提供的涡轮增压器是不合理，即使它的价钱
比中国提供的贵 100%（为例）。很容易就可以想出一些为“合理”充场面的话，例如
是当地提供的涡轮增压器在时间上比较有把握，而船期十分紧张。或者是，当地的修船
厂喜欢在当地提供的配件/零件，等等。

SAJ 漏了去针对的是在更换后留下的很可能还是很有价值的旧配件/零件应该怎样处理。
这在 NEWBUILDCON 第 35 (c) (v)条文有非常详尽的针对：
“Where applicable, the Buyer shall return replaced parts to the Builder’s request and cost
and expense provided the Builder makes such request at the time of the replacement. In the
event that they are the subject of a dispute under Clause 42 (Dispute Resolution), the Builder
shall hold the replaced parts available for inspection by the Buyer. Upon their replacement,
the ownership of replaced parts shall revert to the Builder.”（如果适用，买方/船东就要归
还船厂这换下的旧配件/零件，有关费用归船厂，只要船厂在更换的时候提出此要求。
如果双方对这方面有争议，船厂必须让买方/船东作出调查取证。这更换下的旧配件/零
件的主权回归给船厂）。
6.3 船东在船厂以外其他地方修理必须通知船厂

SAJ 要求买方要先给船厂文书的通知确认去作出修理的时间与地点，而且在不影响船
期与修理的情况下，船厂是有权派出他的代表去当场确认缺陷的性质与程度，并尽快
在事后确认缺陷是否是担保的范围内。这是 Article IX (3)(b)的第三/四句话，如下：
“In the event that the BUILDER proposes to cause the necessary repairs or replacements to
be made to the VESSEL at any other shipyard or works than the Shipyard, the BUYER shall
first, but in all events as soon as possible, give the BUILDER notice in writing or by cable
confirmed in writing of the time and place such repairs will be made, and if the VESSEL is
not thereby delayed, or her operation or working schedule is not thereby impaired, the
BUILDER shall have the right to verify by its own representative(s) the nature and extent of
the defects complained of. The BUILDER shall, in such case, promptly advise the BUYER by
cable, after such examination has been completed, of its acceptance or rejection of the defects
as ones that are coverable by the guarantee herein provided.”

船厂要去派出代表去在修理的时候进行确认，是因为有一些不明朗的情况，即缺陷是
由于船员的操作不当或疏忽而导致的。这一来，就不是在船厂对船舶作出担保的范围内
了，即针对造船时候的物料、工艺或是设计不妥。另一种不明朗的情况需要船厂去派出
代表去确认与保护自己的是，有了担保缺陷也可能是有两种或以上的修理办法，而它
们涉及的费用会是差别很大。显然，船厂要作出安排是需要船东提前给他有关修理时间
与地点的通知。至于船厂是否去这样做，也会是要看其他的因素，例如是缺陷价值不高，
加上船厂心里有数，可能也就算了。如果要派出代表去进行确认，船厂也可以在当地委
任验船师，反正是哪一种方面或价钱比较低就可以。这里还没有提到另一种情况，就是
船东没有给通知就进行修理，之后向船厂索赔。这又是笔者在许多地方已经提到过的，
就是没有把这种违约的严重后果写得清清楚楚，恐怕船东向船厂的索赔还是可以提出 ，
只不过在这种情况下就给了船厂一个质疑的机会，也会令仲裁员或法官有所怀疑。正如
《海牙规则》Article 3 (6)在提到的交货后 3 天的通知与交货后 1 年内必须提出诉讼的分
别，前者只是会带来船方的质疑与不利推断，而后者就会令整个索赔失去时效。

接下去就是要求船厂在确认后要尽快通知船东到底接不接受有关的缺陷是属于担保范
围内。这是因为如果船厂接受的话，他就被要求马上支付给船东该笔修理费用。而如果
船厂不接受是属于担保范围，而船东却不同意，这就变了是双方有了一个争议需要去
由仲裁解决。很可能船东会想去尽快推进仲裁，因为他恐怕一去修理就要给钱，所以也
希望尽早拿到裁决书去对船厂执行。如果裁决书判下来是船厂有责任，就是船厂要马上
支付给船东该笔修理费用。

这里先去针对一个可能 SAJ 刻意或无意间出现的漏洞或疑点，就是它说明在出了裁决

书裁定船厂有责任，船厂才需要支付这笔修理费用给船东。在这样的明示规定下，就表
示仲裁员不能判船厂要支付给船东利息，就是在船东支付给了其他修理厂直到裁决书
的一天。在利息高昂的时候，加上仲裁受到拖延，船东可能会有颇大的损失，而且遇上
精明的船厂就会借这个漏洞去取巧。

在订约自由下，如果船东与船厂认为是否属于担保缺陷的争议可让其他机构或人士作
出判断，会是比去伦敦仲裁更准确与省时的话，大可以在造船合约中去这样约定。例如，
让有关船级社去作出判断。但问题是船级社不一定愿意对这种担保缺陷的争议去插手。
针对一些特殊的船舶，例如是渔船，会可以有这种安排，例如 John Moodie & Co and
others Pursuers against Coastal Marine (Boatbuilders) Ltd Defenders (2003) SCLR 56 的有关
担保缺陷的条文包括了以下的争议解决机制：
“12.4 In the event of any dispute about whether a defect, failure or breakdown has occurred
for which the contractor is responsible under clause 12.1, the vessel will be inspected by the
SFIA [Sea Fish Industry Authority] whose decision on the dispute shall be binding on the
parties. All costs of such inspection shall be borne by the contractor in the event that the SFIA
decides that the defect, failure or breakdown is the contractor’s responsibility under clause
12.1. In all other cases, the said costs shall be borne by the purchaser.”

6.4 船厂只负责担保的修理费用

再接下去是 SAJ 在 Article IX (4)(a)明确规定即使是包括在担保范围内的缺陷与修理，

在费用上是由船厂负责（但不超过由船厂自己进行修理的合理费用），可船厂是明确
不去承担任何结果性的损失，包括是时间损失，利润损失，滞期费等等。该条文的文字
/措辞如下：
“The BUILDER shall have no responsibility for any other defects whatsoever in the
VESSEL than the defects specified in paragraph 1 of the Article. Nor shall the BUILDER in
any circumstances be responsible or liable for any consequential or special losses, damages or
expenses including, but not limited to, loss of time, loss of profit or earning or demurrage
directly or indirectly occasioned to the BUYER by reason of the defects specified in
paragraph 1 of the Article or due to repairs or other works done to the VESSEL to remedy
such defects.”

在 The “Seta Maru” (2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367，Thomas 大法官判是该条文只局限责任在

修理与更换，至于船舶因为严重缺陷导致船价下跌的索赔是不包括在内的：
“I agree with the view. The liability the yard accepted under art. IX.I was limited to repair
and replacement; this of necessity meant that there was no claim for diminution in value.”

针对船厂而言，这是一个十分重要的保障。因为修理费用毕竟还是算得出来，但如果去
包括其他的责任，就会是一个无底深潭了。光是时间的损失，如果涉及一个严重的设计
或工艺不妥要去进行修理，这可能会带来一两个月不等的船期延误。在今天船舶每天租
金很容易就是 5 万/10 万美元，这一笔损失就会是 500 万/600 万美元了。这里也不存在
什么公道不公道，也说不清楚。因为要船东自己承担就是对船东不公道了，虽然船东对
租金损失可以去买保险。SAJ 有这样去针对，这表示没有清楚无误的文字或措辞去把这
种索赔豁免，就会是难以抗辩船东提出修理费以外的损失，包括船期损失。这毕竟是普
通法的地位，就是损失只要不是订约时不可预见（ remoteness）与因果关系没有打断
（causation），无辜方都可以向违约方索赔。

NEWBUILDCON 的第 37(b)也有类似的条文，如下：
“(b) Liability for Defects discovered after delivery
Except to the extent expressly provided in Clause 35 (Builder’s Guarantee), the Builder shall
have no liability in contract, tort (including negligence), breach of statutory duty or otherwise
for:
…
(ii) any loss, damage or expenses caused as a consequence of such Defect (which shall
include, but not be limited to, loss of time, loss of profit or earnings or demurrage directly or
indirectly incurred by the Buyer).”

6.5 担保缺陷修理所带来的其他问题

担保缺陷所作出的修理会带来其他的问题，并在造船合约去有所针对。这里第一个问题
就是所作出的修理会是本身工艺或用的物料不妥而导致延续下去的问题，这是否要卖
方/船厂负责？看来，如果去作出修理的不是船厂本身，而是由船东所选择的其他修理
厂，就很难想象船厂会愿意为第三者去负责后果。毕竟，船厂根本没有办法去参与或监
督其他修理厂的所作所为。固然，船东会去争辩指修理后延续下去的问题本身就是来自
担保缺陷，期间因果关系并没有因为是其他修理厂去作出的修理而中断。这种争辩在
The “Elf” (1985) LMLN No. 145 也有出现。这说法有它的道理，举例说担保期限第一次
修理只能去作出部分的修理。这一来进一步的修理就不存在船东再要给一个通知，而且
通知必须要在担保期内。但是如果其他修理厂涉及了工艺或者用的物料不妥，这应该是
明显中断了因果关系。但为了避免这种争议，以及去涉及昂贵的调查取证等问题，SAJ
在 Article IX (4)(b)的第一句是明确了船厂不对这些修理后带来的新缺陷负责。条文如下：
“The BUILDER shall not be responsible for any defects in any part of the VESSEL which
may subsequent to delivery of the VESSEL have been replaced or in any way repaired by any
other contractor …”

但如果换一种情况就是对担保缺陷作出的修理是由卖方 /船厂自己去进行，看来对修理
的后果把责任推得一干二净又好像是不合理。而且这会带来一种情况就是船厂去马虎对
待担保修理，因为反正都不用对结果负责。这一来， SAJ 看来没有去针对，但在
NEWBUILDCON 就有一条文说明船厂要对这种修理或更换作出另一段时间的担保，例
如是 6 个月不等的额外担保期限。这是它的第 35 (d)条文如下：
“The Builder guarantee repairs or replacements to the Vessel made under sub-clause (b)
above for an additional Guarantee Period of the number of months stated in Box 21 from the
date of completion of such repairs or replacements provided such work has been performed
by the Builder or its Sub-contractors. The additional Guarantee Period shall, however, not end
on a date earlier than the end of the original Guarantee Period for any such item.”

但在 SAJ 就根本没有类似的条文去针对，这表示遇上上述的情况，还是以原来约定的
12 个月担保期为准，法律不会去默示任何延长。

6.6 担保缺陷如果不能修妥的救济

会有情况就是在担保期内发现的缺陷是非常严重，例如在上述介绍的 A/B Gotaverken

v. Westminster Corporation of Monrovia (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505，舱盖漏水没有办法去
修妥，最后还是要船厂去更换新的舱盖才解决问题。可以想象是如果无法去这样做，这
一个担保缺陷就不是光是由船厂承担修理费就可以解决。这种情况也在 Simon Curtis 的
《The Law of Shipbuilding Contracts》一书第三版之 162 页提到的一个伦敦仲裁中出现。
它涉及了 1988 年在南韩建造两艘油矿散货船（ Product/Oil/Bulk/Ore Carriers 或简称
PROBO），在交船后发现舱盖漏水。在船厂与船东尽了很大努力后，船舶还是没有办
法修妥，最后逼使船舶只去装油（因为可以去把舱盖焊接封死，就再也不会漏水了）。
这一来，船东显然是有重大的损失，包括营运方面的损失以及船舶的价值下跌。结果在
伦敦仲裁，判是船厂违约，违反的是他在合约中提供对担保期内发现的缺陷的修理，
这是在 Article IX (1)的第一句所说的“the BUILDER undertakes to remedy … any defects
in the VESSEL”。仲裁庭下令船厂赔偿给船东将船舶改装为油轮的费用，包括了在改装
期间无法营运该船舶的损失（时间与利润损失），以及船舶被迫改装为油轮所带来的
船价下跌（diminution of value）。这是去节录该书的报道：
“A situation in which the shipbuilders were unable to repair arose in London arbitration
proceedings in 1988 in connection with two Korean-built ‘PROBO’ class
Product/Oil/Bulk/Ore Carriers, whose hatch covers were found to be leaking following
delivery. Despite extensive efforts by both the shipbuilders and the purchasers, no satisfactory
solution could be found to the problem and the vessels were in due course converted into
product carriers by the relatively simple expedient of sealing their hatch covers.
Against this background a London arbitration tribunal awarded damages against the
shipbuilders for breach of their contractual obligations to remedy the defects. The award
covered both the costs of conversion of the vessels, including the purchasers’ loss of their use
during the works, and the diminution in the vessels’ value as the result of their enforced
change of use.”
针对这一个仲裁案件，裁决书所作出的赔偿有进一步探讨的必要。针对第一笔就是把船
舶改装为油轮的费用，显然是船厂作为违约方难辞其咎。因为无法修理的情况下也只能
走这条路了。至于其他的两项损失赔偿，接下去可去介绍。

6.6.1 改装期间的时间与利润损失

在 SAJ 标准格式合约的 Article IX (4)(a)，明示条文说得很清楚船厂是不负责在担保缺

陷 的 修 理 所 直 接 或 间 接 产 生 的 任 何 结 果 性 或 特 殊 的 损 失 （ consequential or special
losses），并特别去针对了时间损失，利润损失或滞期费。显然，规定得这么清楚也就
必须给它一个合理的解释，但由于本质上是免责条文，所以还是必须去针对性地解释
（contra proferentem 斜体）。这解释了有关的两艘 PROBO 船舶在较早期努力去想办法
修理严重漏水的舱盖，但最后不成功，而其中船东损失了不少时间与营运的机会，但
这种损失是根据这一条明示条文是不能去包括在内。相反，把该两艘船舶改装为油轮是
在担保修理失败后的无奈之选，也属于是船厂承诺去修理但结果做不到的违约，与发
现担保缺陷是两码事。所以不严格可视为是 Article IX (4)(a)所针对对担保缺陷的修理所
导致的时间与利润损失，加上去针对船厂作出解释，有关条文应该是不适用。所以船厂
要负责在改装期间所导致的时间与利润损失。这里也可以节录 Thomas 大法官在 The
“Seta Maru” (2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367 所说如下：
“… what it excluded was consequential loss or damage referable to the defects specified in
art IX.1 or due to work done to remedy such defects ( 这是指担保修理). Where there were
other claims, then the exclusion in that sentence did not cover the consequential losses ….”

6.6.2 修理复原/重建的费用与价值下跌的抉择

这是一个涉及工程合约经常会面临的严重问题，就是如果有关的工程有缺陷，去作出
救济经常会有两种做法。（一）就是去修理复原/重建（reinstatement 或 cost of cure），
即把有缺陷的部分去修妥或重建（例如像 A/B Gotaverken v. Westminster Corporation of
Monrovia [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505 就是去更换新的舱盖）；（二）就是有关有缺陷的
工程所导致的价值下跌（diminution of value）。但这两种救济的办法所涉及的金钱会可
能是天渊之别，而且通常是修理复原/重建会是价格比较高，但有缺陷的工程由于不是
大缺陷可能没有带来什么价值的下跌（这是去比较没有缺陷的工程）。

或说，可否等待受害方去真正进行了修理复原/重建后才要求违约方（承建商或船厂）
作出金钱上的赔偿。但这会有可能需要漫长的等待，法律也不会坚持损失的计算是必须
已经产生了的，对将来会产生的损失就不肯去作出估计。所以，也无法去坚持受害方必
须先进行修理复原/重建才进行起诉。但这一来，要去作出赔偿的违约方就会怀疑受害
方借助这个缺陷去夸大索赔，敲他竹杠。
英国法院对这方面的抉择，看来只要是接受受害方有较大的可能性会去将来修理复原 /
重建，而且有关的费用虽然是高但不是完全不成比例（如果是的话也表示将来受害方
会去修理复原/重建的机会其实是不高），通常还是倾向于给出这样的救济。这里可以
去举一个重要的先例，就是 Ruxley v. Forsyth (1995) All ER 1936。在该案，Forsyth 先生
雇用原告承建商在他家里建造一个游泳池，造价是约 1.8 万英镑。建造合约说明水的深
度是 6 尺 6 寸，但后来在 Forsyth 先生的要求下，原告同意不加价去加深至 7 尺 6 寸。

但后来的工程不完善，游泳池底部有裂缝。原告同意免费重建，并赔偿 Forsyth 先生雇

用测量师的费用。游泳池在 1988 年 6 月建造完毕，原告在 11 月要求付钱。Forsyth 先生
坚持要减掉 1 万英镑，因为他受到重建的干扰。原告的不情愿的情况下同意，但 Forsyth
先生仍不清还余下的工程费用。

在 1989 年 3 月，Forsyth 先生发现游泳池水深不是 7 尺 6 寸而是 6 尺 9 寸。这一来，争议

扩大，原告被逼在 1990 年 1 月去法院起诉索赔余数约 1 万英镑。而 Forsyth 先生就反索
赔游泳池缺陷要去补救的 21,000 英镑的复原重建费用。

在一审的高院，Diamond 大法官认定的事实是：
（i）水深 6 尺已足够有余作为跳水（diving）之用，所以水深只有 6 尺 9 寸不妨碍
Forsyth 先生在这方面的使用。
（ii）水深不够 7 尺 6 寸不影响游泳池的价值，更加不影响房子的价值。
（iii）如要去加深该现有游泳池的水深达 7 尺 6 寸，这必须去重建，总费用会是 2.1 万
英镑。
（iv）Forsyth 先生并无意去重建。
（v）去花 2.1 万英镑去重建，只为了去加深至 7 尺 6 寸是完全不合理，因为效益与所
花的钱完全不成比例。

结果是 Diamond 大法官认为若是判给 Forsyth 先生一个免费游泳池，另加 2.1 万英镑的

估计“复原重建”的赔偿并不公平，实在是天掉下来的“利润”，所以判原告胜诉。但
毕竟，原告的确是违约，没有按照规范说明的有关水深来建造游泳池，总要给 Forsyth
先生作为无辜方有一个救济。但另一种替代的救济就是房子有一个 7 尺 6 寸深的游泳池，
比较有一个 6 尺 9 寸的游泳池根本就没有价格上的差别，所以也无法去作出救济。结果
Diamond 大法官是去判给 Forsyth 先生一种比较罕见的赔偿，就是“失去的满足”
（loss of amenity），因为水深不够 7 尺 6 寸，因此不能潜得更深，Diamond 大法官有
以下的话：
“In the course of his written submissions Mr Forsyth reminded me that ‘This is not a matter
of commerce to be nicely measured in money. Swimming pools are not necessities, they are
for fun. Due to (the plaintiff’s) default I have lost some fun.’ I think that where a contract is
for the provision of a pleasurable amenity, such as a swimming pool, it is entirely proper to
award a general sun for the loss of amenity. I accept that there has been a loss of amenity
brought about by the shortfall in depth and I award damage for loss of that amenity in the sum
of pounds 2,500.”

但在上诉庭，这一审被推翻，不被认为可去判给一笔“失去的满足“。而一般的工程有
缺陷，赔偿要不是两个价值的比较（在此案是 7 尺 6 寸的游泳池的价值与 6 尺 9 寸游泳
池的价值，或是拥有两个不同深度游泳池的房子的价值），要就是“复原重建”的费
用。此案例的两个价值没有分别，但 Forsyth 先生又肯定多少有点损失，于是上诉庭判
原告要去赔 Forsyth 先生这 2 万多英镑的估计“复原重建”费用，因为再没有其他令
Forsyth 先生复原（回到合约没有被违反的地位）的方法。而且是，将来 Forsyth 先生
“赚”了这笔钱，不去重建，法院也不会理会，不去监督。这倒也对，正如卖方赔买方
不去交货的损失，不存在对这笔钱的使用有限制，要事后去监督。Staughton 大法官说：
“What money will place him ‘in the same situation … as if the contract had been
performed?’ The answer, on the facts of this case, is the cost of replacing the pool. Otherwise,
a builder of a swimming pools need never perform his contract. He can always argue that 5
feet in depth is enough for diving. Even if the purchaser has stipulated for 6, 7 or 8 feet and
pay no damages. In my judgment the key lies in the proposition…. that reasonableness is a
matter of mitigation. It is unreasonable of a plaintiff to claim an expensive remedy if there is
some cheaper alternative which would make good his loss…. But if there is no alternative
course which will provide what he requires, or none which will cost less, he is entitled to the
cost of repair or reinstatement even if that is very expensive … ”

上诉庭的判决结果又在贵族院被推翻，而 Diamond 大法官的原判被最后接受。贵族院指

出一般的建筑工程合约违约后赔偿是“复原重建”的费用，特别往往是这费用会低于
价值的比较（different in value），或是价值上没有差异或无法去肯定。但这不表示“复
原重建”的费用估计是可去完全罔顾合理不合理，而在这一点上，贵族院不同意
Staughton 大法官合理不合理只是针对减少损失（mitigation）的说法。

Lloyd 勋爵首先依赖美国纽约上诉庭的 Jacob & Youngs Inc v. Kent (1921) 230 NY 239 并
指该判决非常重要，因为：
“… it establishes two principles which I believe to be correct and which are directly relevant
to the present case: first, the cost of reinstatement is not the appropriate measure of damages
if the expenditure would be out of all proportion to be good to be obtained, and secondly, the
appropriate measure of damages in such a case is the difference in value, even though it
would result in a nominal award.”

Lloyd 勋爵接着依赖澳大利亚 Bellgrove v. Eldridge (1954) 90 CLR 613 一案并指出如下：

“Once again one finds the court emphasising the central importance of reasonableness in
selecting the appropriate measure of damages. If reinstatement is not the reasonable way of
dealing with the situation, then diminution in value, if any, is the true measure of the
plaintiff’s loss. If there is no diminution in value, the plaintiff has suffered no loss. His
damages will be nominal.”

有关争议方面的问题，本书第十一章有关损失的计算已有涉及，不去在此重复。只去回
头解释有关两艘 PROBO 船舶改装为油轮的伦敦仲裁，而仲裁庭判的是 PROBO 船舶与
油轮之间的价值下跌，现在读者应该可以看到有根有据的。韩国船厂所交的船舶有一个
无法修复的缺陷，这一来就根本不存在修理复原/重建（reinstatement 或 cost of cure）费
用的问题。这剩下来唯一能够给与受害人的救济也就是两种不同船舶的价值下跌，而显
然一艘 PROBO 比一艘油轮价值要高。如果市场价值是一样，该不幸的船东恐怕只能成
功索赔名誉上的损失了。或说，将来经营一艘 PROBO 与只能经营一艘油轮相比会有利
润损失。这是肯定的，但两种船舶利润的前景应该在两种船舶的市场价格已经有所反映。

7. 交船前已经发现的船舶缺陷

上述的第（2）部分已经谈过交船前已经发现的缺陷是不被包括在担保修理内的。道理
十分简单，因为船东大可以拒绝接收船舶，而船厂也有机会可以自己去进行修理。这里
当然也要说明就是在订约自由下，会有不同写法，所以这也不是一成不变的道理。例如
在 AWES 标准格式，Article 12 就说明船厂的担保是包括了任何在交船时发现并且船东
给了通知的缺陷（any defects notified in writing by the PURCHASER on the VESSEL’S
delivery due to bad workmanship and/or use of the defective materials）。

正 如 在 A/B Gotaverken v. Westminster Corporation of Monrovia (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep.

505，它的第 13 条文第 3 段有明示条文说明只对交船后的隐藏缺陷负责，说：
“Where the customer has not given notice prior to the departure of the ship from the
shipyard, the shipyard shall be discharged from all liability for the delivery, save that such
hidden defects or deficiencies of material or workmanship as the customer obviously could
not detect or should not have detected prior to delivery, may be claimed within [six] months
after the delivery.”

在 Donaldson 大法官看来对于照字面去解释没有任何困难，说船厂只在两种情况之下负
责交船前的缺陷，(一)是给了船厂通知的表面缺陷；与（二）在 6 个月期间内发觉的潜
在缺陷，他说：
“In my judgment, the third paragraph of this regulation bars claims for patent defects, if they
are not made on or before the departure of the vessel from the yard and for latent defects at
the end of six months thereafter.”
交船已经发现船舶缺陷的情况会发生在船东因为航运市场好而急于接船，并加上了船
厂因为其自己其他的安排或在该造船合约下已经到了面临被船东取消合约的最后期限
而不肯去修妥，等。这种案例也出现过，如 The “Fayrouz I-IV” (1989) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 73。
在该案例中船东接船后因船舶缺陷向船厂索赔高达 300 万英镑，船东提出的船舶缺陷
可节录如下：
“(a) Defects in welding in all four vessels.
(b) Defects in hatch covers in all four vessels.
(c) Defects in main engine cylinder liners in all four vessels.
(d) Failure to supply spare balancer chains for vessels 1.
(e) Failure to supply booster cooler water pumps for vessels 1, 2 and 3.
(f) Defects in wiring, flow transmitters and starter solenoids in all four vessels.
(g) Defects in alignment of bow and hawsepipe in all four vessels.
(h) Charges made by Lloyd’s Register of Shipping for all four vessels.
(i) Defects in painting requiring grit-blasting and repairing in vessel 3 and 4.
(j) Defects in bridge deck composition in vessels 3 and 4.”

在 SAJ Article IV (5)，有一句说明船舶如果被船东接收就表示船舶符合造船合约的规定

是 最 终 与 有 约 束 力 ： “ final and binding so far as conformity of the VESSEL to [the]
Contract and Specifications is concerned.”。但这在 The “Seta Maru” (2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
367，Thomas 大法官指这一句的意思有限，它只是针对船东在接受了试航后，事后去
拒绝接船。它针对不了船东在接船后声称有一些缺陷已经存在并且是通知了船厂。在这
种情况下，估计很难说船东接了船就是一种弃权或禁止翻供，更不说船东会在这种情
况下接船去作出抗议或在交接备忘录中注明船舶有哪些问题。这表示船东的确可以去这
样做好像 The “Fayrouz I-IV”的船东一样。除非在个别的案子中有其他的事实，例如船厂
在船东指出缺陷后，愿意去马上进行修妥，反正船舶还在自己的船厂，样样比较方便。
但船东因为船期的原因，例如他新订的租约销约期十分紧张，不给船厂这一个机会。这
一来，的确是会构成弃权或禁止翻供，船厂恐怕要负责也只局限在他自己去作出修理
或 更 换 的 费 用 。 有 关 上 述 所 讲 ， 可 以 去 节 录 Simon Curtis 所 著 的 《 The Law of
Shipbuilding Contracts》一书第三版 157 页所说如下：
“However, in China Shipbuilding Corporation v. Nippon Yusen Kabukishi Kaisha and
Another [The ‘Seta Maru’] (2000) Thomas J. held that the effect or wording of this type is
limited and operates merely to prevent the buyer from refusing delivery of the vessel once she
has been accepted pursuant to Article VI of the SAJ from following her sea trials; it does not
prevent him from asserting after delivery the existence of specific defects previously notified
to the builder. It seems unlikely in light of this decision that, in circumstances in which the
buyer makes clear that his acceptance of the vessel operates without prejudice to his rights in
respect of the defect. An English court or arbitration tribunal would hold that such rights are
nevertheless deemed waived or otherwise abandoned. Depending upon the terms of the
contract (and subject in particular to any exclusion or limitation of liability in respect of
indirect or consequential losses) the buyer would, it is submitted be entitled to pursue by way
of a claim in damages any costs incurred in repairing defects discovered before delivery
which the builder of contract refused to remedy.”

交船前发现的缺陷不包括在 12 个月的担保期的条文内，这也有它的好处。马上想到的
就是船东可索赔的损失不被局限在船厂只承担去修理与替换的费用，而是普通法下的
损失（主要是船期的损失），除非是订约时船厂不可预见的损失类别或者因果关系的
中断。

8. 针对担保修理的保险

船厂可以针对担保缺陷并要去作出修理的花费去进行投保，这通常是根据船厂本来就
会投保的造船风险（builder’s risk insurance），也在造船合约会是明示要求的（在 SAJ
的第 XII 条），在它的基础上进行加保。有关的做法在 The “Red Sapphire” (2006) 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 35，其中保险条文是以背书（endorsement）的方式去加在原来的造船风险
保险，文字如下：
“It is hereby noted and agreed to include with effect from inception GUARANTEE RISKS
as per the attached wording.

5. The attached wording provided as follows:

Section B—Guarantee Risks
NLG 1,000,000 maximum liability each claim, which amount always remains at risk.
Per: Vessels, yachts as per building risks policy.
Conditions: This insurance to cover:
Heesen Shipyards BV …
For all damages and/or losses and/or liabilities and/or responsibilities and/or costs and/or
expenses arising under the following guarantee clause:
“On delivery of the vessel, the Seller shall be free of all responsibility or liability whatsoever
except for the warranty contained in this Section …
The Seller shall remedy at its own yard and in the normal working hours, by repairing or if
necessary replacing:
(i) any defect in writing by the Buyer on the vessel’s delivery, and
(ii) any defect due to bad workmanship or use of defective materials and not discoverable on
delivery which becomes apparent during the period of twelve (12) months from the date of
delivery of the vessel provided the defect is notified in writing within one (1) month from its
discovery …”
Period: Twelve months, risk attaching as per guarantee clause.
Premium: Minimum deposit premium NLG25,000 per annum adjustable on basis of 0.05 per
cent on turnover.”

9. 针对担保缺陷与修理以外的责任

船厂对于船东在船舶质量上所担负的责任是非常大的，毕竟是由船厂设计、建造、出售
与交出该船舶给买方船东。除了造船合约内的明示条文会带来船厂的责任，还有是船厂
作为卖方在 1979 年《货物销售法》下的默示保证。这三个默示保证就是货物要符合描述
或/与样本；货物要符合“满意质量”与货物要适合买方的特别用途。而且在时效方面 ，
根据 1980 年的《Limitation Act》有 6 年时效。但这些默示的地位都可以用明示条文明确
去超越，而被视为是偏袒船厂的 SAJ 合约也有去这样做。这里可去介绍 The “Seta
Maru”(2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 367。首先介绍案情是它涉及了 3 艘 15 万吨的散装货船，三
条船的名字是“ Seta Maru”、“ Saikyo”与“ Suma”，船东是日本公司（著名的
NYK），而船厂是台湾的中国造船厂。第一艘船“Seta Maru”在 1992 年 6 月 25 日交了
船，但到了 2 年后的 1994 年 11 月 17 日船东才发现船舶的焊接有缺陷，并导致严重的
事故与船壳进水。这同样的问题也发生在第二艘船“ Saikyo”，是在交船后的 21 个月
后才发现。但第三艘船“Suma”（在 1994 年 11 月 4 日交船）由于前两艘船舶发现的问
题而有所警觉，结果是在担保期内船厂把焊接的缺陷修妥了。反正船东向船厂提出前 2
艘船舶的损失，包括修理费用，船价下跌，时间/利润损失等等。

对船东而言，他是感觉到非常不服气，因为该焊接缺陷明显是属于船厂的工艺不妥，
而且在交船的时候船东是完全看不出来。但船东认为船厂是明确知道这些焊接缺陷，包
括像日本船级社（NKK）曾经进行 X 光检验并发觉焊接不妥并要求船厂把它修妥。但
船厂并没有这样做，也没有去报告给日本船级社，所以船厂知道这个情况，也应该知
道这样的船舶质量如果让她开航出海会带来严重的后果。这些焊接的缺陷可去归纳为以
下 4 点：
“1. The welding procedures (CO2 gas shielded single sided semi-automatic arc welding
with backing strips) approved by NKK for the bottom shell plating, the topside tank bottom
plating round gunwales, bilge strakes and internal members were not carried out by the
builder. There were other defects in the other welding of the vessel.

2. The builder made known to the individual welders the parts that NKK would inspect with
the intention that greater care should be taken with those and they would not be representative
of the vessel’s welding.

3. On one occasion NKK required further radiographic inspection; this revealed defects in the
welding, but these were not repaired. Neither the results of the inspection nor the failure to
repair was made known to NKK or the buyers.

4. There were widespread defects in the erection welding ‘giving rise to a substantial risk of
cracks developing (as in fact occurred) and a substantial risk of serious structural failure.”

船东指称船厂在 3 个方面违反了明示的承诺，（1）是根据 Article I.1 要求船厂的建造

必须符合造船合约的要求与规范说明，（2）根据 Article I.2 要求船厂的建造必须符合
日本船级社的规定，（3）根据 Article I.7 要求物料必须符合日本船级社的规定与船舶
的建造必须是以“良好的工艺”，并 符合一流的造船做法（ first class shipbuilding
practice）。而事实看来这 3 艘船舶是严重不合格。

船厂的抗辩就是前 2 艘船舶发现焊接缺陷与通知是已经超出了担保期，所以根据造船
合约的条文他不必对船东负责。而造船合约有关豁免船厂责任的条文（可称为是免责条
文）是在 Article IX.3 的(a)-(d)，如下：
“(a) The Builder shall have no obligation under this guarantee for any defect discovered
after the expiration of the guarantee period specified hereinabove and for any defects
whatsoever in the Vessel other than the defects specified in Section 1 of this Article. Nor shall
the Builder in any circumstances be liable for any indirect, consequential or special losses,
damages or expenses, including, but not limited to, loss of time, loss of profit or earning
(whether of the Vessel, her master, officers, or crew, or of the Buyers, its officers, agents or
employees) or demurrage or towing or pilot charges or dockage, directly or indirectly
incurred or occasioned to the Buyer by reason of the defects specified in Section 1 of this
Article or due to repairs or other work done to the Vessel to remedy such defects.”

(b) 是豁免船厂有关一些船舶损坏的责任，原因是来自海上风险，火灾与船东的疏忽等 。
显然这些是船东自己应该去投保船壳风险所针对的，与船厂的担保修理无关。

(c) 是豁免船厂有关一些船舶损坏的责任，原因是船东进行过修理或改装，并由其他修
理厂进行。

(d) 是豁免船厂一些来自法律默示的责任，说“The guarantee contained as hereinabove in

this Article replaces and excludes any other liability, guarantee, warranty and/or condition
imposed or implied by the law, customary, statutory or otherwise, by reason of the
construction and sale of the Vessel by the Builder for and to the Buyer.”这一句的有效性在
Andrews v. Singer (1934) 1 KB 17 有所明确。

注意是上述条文的文字/措辞十分接近 SAJ 的 IX 4 (a)与 4 (c)。

船东向船厂提出索赔的基础是根据对造船合约内的明示条文 Article I.1，I.2 与 I.7 的违
反，船东认为上述的免责条文，主要是 Article IX.3 (a)，并没有让船厂去豁免在造船合
约内其明示的责任或承诺。其中 Article IX.3 的(b)与(c)是明显与这个争议无关，而
Article IX.3 (d)只针对默示责任但没有去针对明示责任，Thomas 大法官是这样说：
“It was common ground that art. IX.3(d) excluded the liability of the builder under any
implied term (whether implied by operation of law or by statute) but did not exclude liability
for breach of any express term of the contract: Andrews v. Singer, [1934] 1 K.B. 17.”

所以，剩下来的就是有关 Article IX.3 (a)的解释了。船东争辩说 Article IX.3 (a)的第一句

是解释为只是对船厂担保（guarantee）下的责任，并不针对其他会在合约明示条文下
的违约的情况，例如是在 Article I。船东并争辩说 Article IX.3 (a)有船厂“在此担保下没
有责任”（no obligation under this guarantee）这几个争议性的字（注意是 SAJ 的 Article
IX [4][a]是没有这些文字），是要延伸到 Article IX.3 (a)第一句的每个部分，也就是在
前部分是“船厂在此担保下没有责任，如果缺陷是在担保期过了之后才发现”与后部
分是“船厂在此担保下对任何缺陷都没有责任，除了本条文的 Section 1”。而 Section 1
是说明船厂承诺在 12 个月担保期所出现的有关物料与工艺的缺陷，如下：
“Guarantee of Material and Workmanship
The Builder for a period of twelve months following acceptance by the Buyer of the vessel,
guarantees the vessel her hull and machinery … which are manufactured, furnished or
supplied by the Builder … against all defects in materials and/or workmanship on the part of
the Builder …”

船东争辩说去对船厂作出严格的解释，Article IX.3 (a)只是局限在豁免船厂有关担保修

理的责任，而且局限在造船的物料与工艺。但文字上并不适用在其他并非有关担保修理
的违约，特别是 Article I.1，I.2 与 I.7。以下是船东争议的概述：
“It was argued for the buyers that the first sentence was to be construed as defining the
liability of the builder under the guarantee, but not the liability that would otherwise exist for
breach of an express term of the contract. The argument relied on the words ‘no obligation
under this guarantee’ being read as a phrase governing both parts of the remainder of the
sentence so that it read, ‘no liability under this guarantee for any defect discovered after the
expiration of the guarantee period’ and ‘ no liability under this guarantee for any defects
whatsoever in this vessel other than the defects specified in section 1 of this article.’ In this
way, the sentence dealt with the date by which defects had to be discovered and the nature of
defects which were covered; it made clear that the liability under the guarantee extended only
to defects discovered before the expiry of the guarantee and only to defects within the scope
of art IX.1 – defects in material and workmanship.”

但船东的这种咬文嚼字的争辩并不为 Thomas 大法官所接受，他认为 Article IX.3 (a)一

定要放在整个合约的语境 /环境（context）下作为 Article IX.3 的一部分来解释。而
Article IX.3 的(b)-(d)都是去豁免船厂一些不同的责任，所以(a)也是为了去豁免船厂的
责任，特别是造船合约中的明示责任。Thomas 大法官认为如果接受船东的争辩，(a)就
显得多余了，因为担保修理本身并不存在责任的问题。他是判 (a)第一句话的前部分
（for any defect discovered after the expiration of the guarantee period）是豁免船厂对于在
担保期之后船东才作出通知的船舶缺陷的责任，而 (a)第一句话的后部分（ for any
defects whatsoever in the Vessel other than the defects specified in Section 1 of this Article）
就是针对造船合约所有其他的明示责任。

总而言之 Thomas 大法官认为整个 Article IX.3 是去复杂而全面的针对了交船后发现不

妥的各种情况，不论责任是来自合约的明示或者默示条文，他说：
“Paragraph (a) art.IX.3 must be read in context as part of art. IX.3 where the other sub-
paragraphs were intended to and did exclude liability. Just as it was clear that pars.(b), (c) and
(d) excluded liability for the matters set out in those paragraphs, par.(a) was, in my view, also
intended to and did exclude liability. What art IX.3(a) did was to exclude liability for defects
arising from a breach of an express term of the contract unless there was liability under the
terms of art. IX.1, just as art. IX.3(d) excluded other liabilities from a breach of an express
term of the contract. In my judgment, the first part of the first sentence excluded liability
under the guarantee for defects which were not discovered during the 12 months; that part
therefore excluded defects which might have existed or occurred during the 12 months period
but which were not discovered within that period. The second part of the first sentence
excluded liability under the contract for any defects other than those specified in art.IX.1.
…
On the assumption made for the purpose of this question, in my judgment therefore the terms
of art. IX provided for a guarantee for defects discovered after the buyers accepted delivery of
the vessel; art. IX.3 excluded liability for defects arising from breaches of the express terms
of art. 1 beyond the liability expressly assumed under art. IX.1; art. IX.3 was therefore not
confined to exclusion of breaches of implied terms. This result accords with the general
commercial purpose of the contract and the particular variations to the standard form used in
this contract.”

这样看来，SAJ 的有关条文应该是非常保障船厂，让船厂除了担保的缺陷与修理之外，
就把其他明示或默示的责任都去排除了。但在 The “Seta Maru”(2000) 1 Lloyd’s Rep.
367，就提到有一点，就是如果船厂对有关缺陷涉及欺诈的情况（在交船时故意去隐瞒
缺陷与误导船东），这是否包括在有关免责条文内可去保护船厂，从而让船东只能以
侵权方式去提出索赔。这方面 Thomas 大法官并没有去作出判决，因为该诉讼只是要法
院处理一个初步争端（preliminary issue），但有以下的评论：
“At the hearing before the Court, the buyers took a wider position, though they made it clear
that they were not advancing a claim for fraud or deceit. They referred to a passage in the 10 th
ed. of Professor Sir Guenter Treitel’s treatise on the Law of Contract (1999) at p. 205 ff.
where there is a discussion of the question of the seriousness of a breach of contract in
relation to an exemption clause; a difficult question remained unresolved as to the effect of
the decisions in Suisse Atlantique Societe d’Armement Maritime S.A. v. N.V. Rotterdamsche
Kolen Centrale, [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 529 and Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor
Transport Ltd., [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 545 on a number of cases where the seriousness of the
breach \had been a ground for holding an exemption clause did not apply. The discussion then
analysed the question of seriousness by reference to the nature of the term broken, the
consequences of the breach and the manner of the breach.
…
However, looking at the wider issues in face raised by the pleading and not merely at the
matter in the way in which it was argued before the arbitrators, there would plainly be a
stronger argument that art. IX.3 did not apply to a breach having all the characteristics of the
seriousness alleged than if regard was had only to its deliberate nature.”

笔者在这一个问题只是简单去说，如果有一种严重的违约会导致免责条文不再适用，
只是在 Photo Productions Ltd. v. Securicor Transport Ltd 以前的“基本违约”这个说法中
出现，现在已经不再存在了。所以，在一些故意或欺诈性的违约，免责条文是否适用应
该就是去看该条文的文字。但会有可能在绝大部分免责条文中，不会去针对欺诈性的违
约。

10. NEWBUILDCON 在船厂担保条文所承担的额外责任

有关 NEWBUILDCON，显然在船厂担保的第 35 条文是规定得更加细致，这是好的地
方。但要指出的一点就是它在一个方面大大的增加了船厂对担保缺陷的责任，这就是在
第 35 (b)条文。在该条文下，如果有担保缺陷，船厂除了要去修理或更换外（根据第 35
[c][iv]条文船厂要支付所有的合理费用），船厂还要负责该担保缺陷所造成对船舶的损
失，只要是由于该缺陷 直接引起的后果（damage to the vessel caused as a direct and
immediate consequence of such guarantee defects）。这会给船厂带来可能是严重与不可预
测的后果，而且与传统造船合约下船厂只负责担保缺陷的修理费用不一样。至于这公道
不公道，完全是看是从哪一方的角度去看。

11. 船厂的担保工程师（guarantee engineer）

SAJ 在 Article IX 5 允许船厂有权利去指定一位担保工程师（guarantee engineer）在担保

期内上船，作用是去帮助船员熟悉船舶操作，在其能力范围内修妥小毛病，代表船厂
接受担保期发现缺陷的书面通知与作出有关调查（例如有否船员的疏忽错误使用或保
养所导致）。

Mocatta 大法官在 The “London Lion” (1980) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 456 说（担保工程师的责任）：
“to act as the builder’s representative aboard and to give the purchaser( 船 东 ) and his
employees ( 船 员 ) full co-operation to enable them to obtain the most efficient use of the
vessel’s machinery and equipment.”

在人数上，AWES 格式是 1 至 2 个。SAJ 格式写明只是一个。人数要去说明，笔者记得

曾见过在前苏联船厂造的船，船厂想派出一大队担保工程师上船，因为很多人想乘机
免费出国。要知道，这会对船东是一大笔负担，因为要免费提供食宿外，还要支付机票
及一笔“工资”。双方也常会去加一条文说明虽然担保工程师在船上是船厂的雇员身份
（这在 NEWBUILDCON 是第 36 [c]条文），但因船东/船员疏忽或过错导致他在船上受
伤或死亡，这会带来担保工程师自己或家属去向船东提出索赔，责任会来自在好像英
国立法的 1957 与 1984 年的《Occupier’s Liability Act》。但船东也会因此要补偿给船厂所
付出的员工伤亡赔偿或其他损失（这是根据船厂与担保工程师之间的雇佣合约与有关
劳工法律下作出的赔偿）。船东的补偿可能会是他的互保协会补偿的范围，如果船东有
去对船厂担保工程师住在船上的情况去加保。当然，船厂担保工程师受伤或死亡也不一
定会是船东/船员疏忽或过错所导致的，这一来是船厂自己要去安排保险与作出赔偿给
他的雇员。

近年来听到船东抱怨说这船厂担保工程师起不到太大作用，船东却要负责他的食宿、工
资与旅费等，而且今天通讯与航空发达，出现了缺陷船厂再派人上船也不迟。再者现在
船上的船员人数也大大少于以前，要找人专门招呼这位船厂担保工程师也是件头痛的
事情。所以在 NEWBUILDCON 的第 36 (d)条文是如下：
“If the Buyer decides not to exercise its right to require the Builder to provide a Guarantee
Engineer on board the Vessel, this shall not prejudice the Buyer’s rights under the provisions
of Clause 35 (Builder’s Guarantee).”

这里与 SAJ 标准格式合约主要的差别是 SAJ 由船厂决定是否派担保工程师上船，而

NEWBUILDCON 的主动权在船东，是根据船东是否去提出要求。如果船东不提出，反
正认为担保工程师起不到太大作用，就也没有船厂担保工程师这个问题了。看来 ，
NEWBUILDCON 之第 36 (d)条文正是有这样的打算或可能会发生。

12. 船厂经济发生问题

这种情况在今天造船行业兴旺的时候，好像去担心船厂的经济是否能够为担保修理作
出金钱上的承担是多余的，但在 80 年代这种担心是十分必要的。如果船厂经济无法承
担，船东会是十分被动。因为到了担保期，表示船舶已经接收，而船价往往也全部支付
了，再也不存在还款担保的问题。这方面 SAJ 与 NEWBUILDCON 都没有去针对，但在
另一个挪威造船标准格式合约（Norwegian Standard Form Shipbuilding Contract）倒是
有去针对。这是在 Article III (3)的最后部分，说：
“If on or before Delivery and Acceptance of the Vessel the Builder is declared bankrupt,
proposes or enters into a fund or a formal composition arrangement or moratorium or
otherwise proves to be in such financial position that is likely to be unable during the
Guarantee Period to perform its guarantee obligations, the Buyer may demand that the
Builder shall provide satisfactory security for the performance by the Builder of such
guarantee obligations, limited to …% of the Original Contract Price, or failing such
guarantee, the Buyer is entitled to deposit the equivalent amount in an escrow account in the
joint name of the Builder and the Buyer and to deduct this amount from the instalment to be
paid on Delivery and Acceptance.”

上述条文是针对交船的时候或较早时，船东发现船厂要倒闭或发生经济困难，会导致
无法承担针对担保修理的责任，就可以去要求船厂提供一个船价约定的百分比，例如
是 10%的担保（通常会是银行担保）。如果船厂不肯给或给不出，船东还有讲价的能力，
因为最后一期船价还没有支付。该条文就说明在船厂不提供担保的时候，船东就可以在
该期的船价支付中扣起，并去存在在一个联名的特定帐户（ escrow account in joint
name），将来如果涉及担保修理的时候在该帐户支取。去这样规定了就可以避免船厂经
济困难的危险，这也表示造船合约有这样的条文，船东在交船前就必须对船厂的经济
状况进行调查，以免错失良机。针对船厂而言，这种条文显然也是对他不利。因为担保
修理是否会产生虽然是未知数，但船东一定会提出这种要求，这就表示船厂不一定能
够全数收到这一笔最后也是最重要的船价支付。而且，怎样算是船厂发生经济困难船东
需要去这样要求，以及要求船价多少百分比的担保等等，都会是富争议之处，会需要
仲裁去解决。这表示交船很大可能不会是一个顺顺利利的过程。

13. 造船行业以外的同样做法

注意是造船行业以外也有同样的做法就是卖方只对销售的商品作出一定期限的担保，
在期限内发现的任何不妥当卖方负责修理，但过了期限才发现的不妥当就明示把所有
责任全部豁免。反正合约法本来就是相通的，只要合约内采用的文字或者措辞是一样，
而且没有什么理由去偏离一般性的解释，应该是有同样的意思或者结论。例如笔者不久
前买了一块手表，才 3 个月就发生了 2 次停顿，结果要拿回工厂去作担保修理，2、3 个
月还不能去退还，为笔者带来不便。但有免费的担保修理，至少比货物出门一概不理的
做法强得多了。

以下举一个案例 BHP v. British Steel (2000) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 277，他们之间的合约涉及了

British Steel（“BS”）供应给 BHP 一批 12 寸钢管，是用来作为海上钻油台连接到英
国岸上的海上油管/石油气管。该批钢管虽然是由 BS 供应，但实际生产的是一家意大利
公司。该合约内有两条有关卖方责任的条文与造船合约的相关条文十分接近，一条就是
去豁免赔偿间接或结果性的损失（indirect loss/consequential damages），另一条就是作
出 18 个月的担保期针对任何设计不妥或者是物料或工艺不妥。该两条条文如下：
“14.5 Neither the Supplier nor the Purchaser shall bear any liability to the other…for loss of
production, loss of profits, loss of business or any other indirect loss or consequential
damages arising during and/or as a result of the performance or non-performance of this
Contract regardless of the cause thereof but not limited to the negligence of the party seeking
to rely on this provision.

17.5 The Supplier shall immediately remedy, at the contracted point of delivery, at his
expense any defect in the Work due to faulty design, materials or workmanship which shall
appear within eighteen (18) months of the date stated in the Purchase Order or such longer
period as may be provided in the Purchase Order, but not later than twenty-four months after
delivery of the Work to the Purchaser…at which time all liability of the Supplier relating to
the Works shall terminate…The Supplier’s liability hereunder shall not exceed 15%…of the
Contract Price by Line Item—the payment of which shall fully discharge all liabilities of the
Supplier…”

该批钢管是在 1994 年 2 月 11 日交货，之后在 4 月 30 日至 6 月 27 日期间去进行铺设并

焊接在一起。但整个项目真正投产是到了 1996 年 3 月，而一直到了 6 月也没有发觉什
么不妥。但 1996 年 6 月就在海面发现有气泡，显示油管管道有裂缝，而 BHP 也在 7 月
时通知了 BS。后来在油管管道在 6 个发生裂缝的地方取了样品，检验结果认为该批钢
管并不符合有关碳含量（carbon equivalent value）的规范说明，导致影响钢材的硬度，
并容易受到硫化物的腐蚀，最终导致裂缝的产生。

但 BHP 能否向 BS 索赔的一个关键问题是在对第 17.5 条文的解释，因为在 1996 年 6 月

发现裂缝，已经超出了第 17.5 条文的 18 个月的担保期，因为该批钢管是在 1994 年 2
月 11 日交货，足足已经过了约 26 个月。上诉庭同意一审的判决，认为担保期已届满，
所以 BHP 败诉。Evans 大法官是这样说：
“(1) cl. 17.5 was not a model of elegant drafting but read as a whole and in its context its
meaning was clear: the first part of the first sentence obliged and entitled British Steel to
remedy at their expense at the contracted point of delivery defects in the work due to faulty
design, materials or workmanship which appeared within 18 months of the date stated in the
purchase order; the obligation depended on the defect appearing within the period; and the
words ‘at which time all liability of the Supplier relating to the Work shall terminate’ mean
what they clearly said: ‘All liability … relating to work embraced all liability arising out of
the contract and its performance; and the learned judge’s decision on issue A was correct;
(2) the scheme of cl. 17.5 was that British Steel’s liability relating to the work was limited in
time so that it encompassed the rectification at their expense of defects appearing within the
18-month period at the end of which all further liability arising out of the contract and its
performance terminated; British Steel’s liability to rectify defects which appeared within the
18-month period was not limited; in addition they were obliged to pay BHP’s costs of
locating, uplifting and replacing up to a limit of 15 per cent. of the contract price by line item;
beyond that they had no liability for defective supply however it arose; this was a
commercially sensible structure which accorded with the clear meaning of the clause as a
whole read in its context;”

所以说到底问题都出在合约条文是否订得好，比方说明知道投产是有延误，而是要到
真正投产才能发觉一些购买的设备是否有不妥，买方就应该把担保期相应延长，或者
把 18 个月的担保期起算是从真正投产起算而非交货就起算。而针对造船合约而言，也
应该有同样的考虑，例如船底的缺陷会是要超出 12 个月，等待船舶进干坞才会被发现，
船东应该争取更加有针对性的条文去对待。