Professional Documents
Culture Documents
第五章 设计船舶的风险与船东批准图纸
第五章 设计船舶的风险与船东批准图纸
而船东所要做的就是:
“the Buyer shall purchase, take delivery and pay for the Vessel.”(买方必须购买、接收交
付并对船舶进行支付)
这明示了是船厂去设计有关的船舶,所以,设计不妥的后果也应该是船厂负责。显然,
如果不是这样的安排,而是船厂根据船东提供的设计去建造船舶,上述的条文就要作
出一定的修改。例如最明确的就是把“设计”一词删除,然后在附加条文说明船舶或船
舶部分的设计是由船东提供与负责。
上述 NEWBUILDCON 的文字清楚说明了船厂有设计的责任,这是在另外一种标准造
船格式 SAJ 中没有提到的。SAJ 的相关序言只提到了建造、下水、装置设备、完成、出售
与 交 付 船 舶 给 买 方 ( In consideration of the mutual convenants herein contained, the
BUILDER agrees to build, launch, equip and complete at its … and sell and deliver to the
BUYER …)。但会有情况是在双方订约时,船东会要求去在 SAJ 的标准条文中加上
“设计”一词。如果没有去加上,设计的风险谁属就要看英国法律(如果造船合约适用
英国法)的默示地位,这在稍后会介绍。
2. 设计不妥的定义
设计主要是表现在图纸(drawings)所包含与传达的技术性的想法,正如在 Malcolm
Clarke 所著的《Shipbuilding Contracts》一书第 77 页对其的定义如下:
“The design is an intellectual achievement giving a technical definition of a physical product
and may also include instructions on the method to be applied in the execution of the work.
The design is thus a technical idea—or complex of technical ideas—which may be
communicated to others as the design is expressed in drawings, technical specifications, etc.
The design, however, is not the drawings as such, but the technical ideas contained therein.”
设计不妥可以发生在许多方面,包括船舶或者她的主机、辅助机器、舵机、舱盖等等。例
如在设计上它的强度或者稳定性不足,反正按照该设计建造出来都会有同样的毛病。它
与工艺不善(bad workmanship)或材料不善(faulty materials)在造船是有一个传统明
显的分别。设计不妥是针对准备船舶的规范说明与图纸(preparations of specifications
and drawings/plans),而工艺与材料不善涉及了去执行该些船舶规范说明与图纸的时候
出错。Barker v. Lull Engineering Company Inc, Supreme Court of California, 1978 案例有针
对这两者分别的论述,如下:
“A manufacturing or production defect is readily identifiable because a defective product is
one that differs from the manufacturer’s intended result or from other ostensibly identical
units of the same product line … A design defect, by contrast, cannot be identified simply by
comparing the injury-producing product with the manufacturer’s plans or with other units of
the same product line, since by definition the plans and all such units will reflect the same
design.”
设计不妥除了会出大事情之外,也经常会出现。在一些针对岸上的建筑所作的统计,发
觉因为设计不妥而导致的索赔在索赔总数中占很大的比例,例如是 54%在一个香港的
调查:Kumaraswamy, Mohan M, “Common categories and causes of construction claims”
(1997) 13 Const LJ 21。这调查虽然不是针对造船,但估计有一定的参考价值。
设计不妥可以是涉及设计人的疏忽,例如是错误解读设计,不完整的设计资料,等。但
也可以涉及当时的技术水平仍未提升至可以避免出问题的程度。
设计的问题要去针对应该是十分重要,它涉及了几个方面,例如是针对设计的知识产
权。但更重要的就是设计不妥所带来的合约或侵权问题,而这种问题会是十分严重。设
计不妥的问题可能会在建造中途就会出现,例如听说大连一个船厂曾经为一家欧洲船
东建造两艘化学品船舶,结果因为设计问题,主机无法装进船壳而造成了严重的延误
与需要重新设计。但很多时候设计不妥的问题根本在建造与交船的时候看不出来,在将
来的营运中才会出现大问题。例如在著 名的油污事件 The “Amoco Cadiz” (1984) 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 304,该轮在 1978 年 3 月份装了 121,157 吨燃油在快将通过英伦海峡的时
候舵机突然失灵,在法国海岸搁浅,导致了船舶全损与十分严重的油污。法国政府在美
国提出起诉,索赔巨额赔偿,而被告是船东、美国船级社、西班牙船厂,等。美国法院
最后的认定是由于舵机的设计出了问题,直接原因是液压管道的一个法兰盘( flange)
有 6 个链档(studs)破裂了 5 个,导致液压迅速流失。但这 6 个链档完全依照设计要求
的规范说明,并且被美国船级社所批准。由于舵机是西班牙船厂所设计,所以他要负上
责任。
3. 设计不妥与潜在缺陷的区别
设计不妥也与潜在缺陷(latent defect)不一样,虽然造成潜在缺陷的原因可能是一开
始的设计不妥,或是建造不妥,或是没有修好。潜在缺陷是可以有多种原因所造成,它
被称为潜在只是因为以一般的检查办法是无法察觉的。潜在缺陷在 Parente v. Bayville
Marine Inc. and General Insurance Co. of America (1975) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 333 的定义如下:
“… a defect or flaw, generally in the metal itself, which could not be discovered by any
known and customary test … [and that] the results of normal wear and tear and gradual
deterioration due to the corrosive efforts of seawater do not constitute a latent defect.”
但由于有这种争论,所以在一些拟定得比较好的保单会去把两种情况都去包括在内,
作为承保的风险。比如说英国针对船厂建造船舶的保单所用的条文是“ Institute Clauses
for Builders’ Risks”(1/6/88),就在第 5.1 条文承保了潜在缺陷,只要该缺陷是在承
保期间被发现,说:
“5.1 SUBJECT ALWAYS TO ITS TERMS, CONDITIONS AND EXCLUSIONS this
insurance is against all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter insured caused and
discovered during the period of this insurance including the cost of repairing replacing or
renewing any defective part condemned solely in consequence of the discovery therein during
the period of this insurance of a latent defect.”
但同时,在第 8 条文也去明示承保设计不妥的风险,说:
“8. Faulty design
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary which may be contained in the Policy or the clauses
attached thereto, this insurance includes loss of or damage to the subject matter insured
caused and discovered during the period of this insurance arising from faulty design of any
part or parts thereof but in no case shall this insurance extend to cover the cost or expense of
repairing, modifying, replacing or renewing such part or parts, nor any cost or expense
incurred by reason of betterment or alteration in design.”
4. 船舶是由谁设计的
船舶的设计有三种来源,(一)是船厂自己设计,(二)是由船厂委托独立的设计机
构或购买已经有的设计,(三)是船东负责设计。
通常去针对一般性的标准船舶,船舶设计是船厂自己做的事,但这也会有变化。在一些
比较专门的船舶,又或是游艇,有可能是买方,也就是船东提供船舶的设计给船厂。这
提供的设计也有可能是由第三者所做的,例如在 80 年代,有美国著名的海事建筑师
Campbell 先生为日本船厂所设计的一连串 F 型系列船舶(Freedom, Fortune, Future 等标
准船舶),反正每造一艘要支付一定的专利费用给 Campbell 先生。在这种情况如果在
造船合约没有条文去针对船厂或船东要承担设计的责任,就更加麻烦。因为难以去默示
谁 应 该 对 设 计 的 不 妥 所 造 成 的 后 果 负 责 。 在 Dixon Kerly Ltd. v. Robinson (1965) 2
Lloyd’s Rep. 404,就是一艘游艇的设计也并非是由船东提供给船厂的,而是由第三者
提供的。判是根据事实船厂的责任仅仅是根据提供的图纸来建造此游艇,并没有默示保
证说船舶要合理地适合在英伦海峡航行。
在订约的自由下,造船合约可以任意去将设计不妥的责任明确要船厂或船东去承担。固
然,如果是船厂负责设计(这是大多数的情况),但把有关的责任去加在船东的头上,
虽然是可以,但必须要用十分清楚的文字或措辞,因为它本质上不合理。比较有争议的
是由船厂委托独立的设计机构或购买已经有的设计,因为有可能该设计机构或购买技
术的建议是来自船东。但船厂要去把设计的责任加在船东的头上会遇到抗拒,因为船东
的看法是委托方毕竟还是船厂,而不是船东。反正对船厂最重要的事情是要提前去掌握
有关设计机构或已经有的设计咨询情况与设计的水平,并在合约中尽量不承担或少承
担这方面的责任。在戴耀南、杨新昆与蔡焕有 2008.1.1 主编的《船舶合同的签订、履行和
管理》一书之 169 页,就提到了造船合约有利的条文所带来的好处,如下:
“对此,69,000 吨化学品/成品油船的合同就处理得较好。
该船的设计是由船东推荐、由船厂委托的。在这条船的建造合同中,在第九条质量保证
条款中写进‘由于设计原因造成本船的任何缺陷或损失,船厂一律不承担任何责任。’
实践证明,由于这一条款的存在,避免了工厂的严重损失。
该船倾斜试验之后,发现实际载重量比合同规定要少 1,500 吨。对此,船东正式以书面
形式提出弃船要求。我们根据合同有关条款规定,据理力争,迫使船东放弃这个要求。
再如,根据 69,000 吨化学品/成品油船 1 号船实船使用情况,空调机制冷位置安排不当,
引起餐厅内振动过强,噪音过大,船东提出要重新布置该机组。当时, 1 号船正处在保
修期内,修改工作必须在欧洲进行,所需费用不下十几万美元。 2 号船正在紧张施工中,
修改必然给生产进度和经济效益造成影响。我们根据合同规定‘我厂对因设计原因造成
的任何缺陷不承担责任’迫使船东撤回了他们的要求。由此,不仅避免了 1 号船的损失,
又为 2 号船该项修改工作争取到一定数额的加账。”
5. 法律的默示地位
如果没有明示条文针对设计不妥的责任,而出了事情要去依赖默示地位,就必须要合
理才可以去默示。看来,合理的责任分摊是谁设计就谁承担责任。由于大部分情况都是
船厂负责设计,再加上船厂一般是比较有经验与有条件去估计与管理设计的风险,所
以责任应该是归船厂。这看来也是普通法的地位,这里可以介绍两个先例。
第一个先例是 A.M. Gillespie & Co. v. James Howden & Co. (1885) 12 R 800,有关造船的
设计是根据船厂提供的一个模型,而在建造之前也被买方 /船东所批准。造船合约对有
关的规范说明是“to carry 1,800 deadweight, including coals, on 14.5 feet draught”。但由
于设计的问题,船舶的载重量有短少,船东向船厂提出索赔,判是船厂要负责。
另 一 个 案 件 是 比 较 近 期 而 且 法 律 地 位 更 加 明 确 , 就 是 Aktiebolaget Gotaverken v.
Westminster Corporation of Monrovia and Another (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505,有关的工程
是一艘油轮在瑞典的船厂进行修理与改装为散装货轮。既然是变为散装货轮,就很需要
安装水密的舱盖。在工程完工后,船舶装货开航去美国,发生了严重的货损,因为舱盖
漏水。舱盖的问题是完全隐蔽的,船东无法在完工并接收船舶的时候发现有问题。船东
在美国进行了昂贵的修理,并去加添了舱盖帆布(tarpaulins)以保证在航次中防止海
水浸入货舱。反正是因为问题严重而导致了最后要去重新装配新舱盖。在仲裁中,船厂
的争议是他不必对舱盖的设计不妥负责,这种并不是材料或者工艺的不妥:
“Gotaverken (船厂) are absolved from liability if and in so far as the damages claimed by
the Owners are solely referable to defects or deficiencies of design of the hatch covers and
hatch coamings (as opposed to defects of deficiencies of materials or workmanship) .”
该案件去了法院,Donaldson 大法官认为在该合约中,工艺良好是包括了设计与执行/
建造,说:
“The contract, as varied, required Gotaverken to supply watertight hatch covers. This
required good workmanship both in design and the execution, and if there were design errors,
I see no reason why these should not be characterized and attract liability as bad
workmanship. The alternative view would be that Gotaverken escaped all liability … which
seems an improbable result for the parties to have intended.”
再次顺便一提的是有另一个有关舱盖严重漏水的问题,也涉及设计不妥,并带来重大
索赔的是 Biakh v. Hyundai (1988) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 187。
62. Goods of any kind are of merchantable quality within the meaning of the Act if they are
fit for the purpose or purposes for which goods of that kind are commonly bought as it is
reasonable to expect having regard to any description applied to them, the price (if relevant)
and all other relevant circumstances.”
6. 造船合约下担保期内或以后发现的设计不妥
通常在一些比较保障船厂的造船合约的标准格式,例如是 SAJ,它会去以清楚文字的
免责条文排除这一些法律带来的默示责任,除了是交船后第一年的担保期。例如在 SAJ
Article IX 4 (c),如下:
“The guarantee contained as hereinabove in this Article (这是指交船后第一年的担保
期)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.”
但即使是这样的条文,在默示地位下船厂还是在设计不妥上有责任,如果设计不妥的
问题在建造中途出现或者在一年担保期内出现。在一年担保期内出现的设计不妥问题,
除非造船合约另有明示条文把有关责任加在船东的头上,否则看来船厂是要负责。这方
面还没有看到相关先例,但在 The “Elf” (1985) LMLN No. 145,有关的船厂在法院诉讼
中接受在担保期内发现的工艺不妥或是设计不妥,他都要负责。 这在 Simon Curtis 所著
的《The Law of Shipbuilding Contracts》第三版第 159 页的脚注 16 有提到,说:“In The
‘Elf’…the shipbuilders conceded that the obligation to rectify ‘defective workmanship’
discovered during the warranty period was capable of encompassing design errors; this issue
did not accordingly need to be decided.”。
7. 设计/图纸的批准
设计/图纸通常是必须由双方约定的船级社与有关当局(例如是船旗国)的批准,但这
不代表将来不会出现设计不妥的问题。毕竟,设计不妥的问题经常会是隐蔽的。再说,
即使涉及了船级社的疏忽,今天船级社提供服务的合约通常会去对疏忽的责任作出豁
免。
设计/图纸通常还会有船东/买方的批准,这批准会是通过船东监督造船的总管。但同样
是批准一般情况下并不会导致转移对设计不妥的责任,毕竟这不妥可能是看不出来。这
方面在 A.M. Gillespie & Co. v. James Howden & Co. (1885) 12 R 800 已经有清楚说明批
准并不代表责任的转移。笔者也不妨节录 Simon Curtis 所著的《The Law of Shipbuilding
Contracts》第三版第 20 页的一段话如下:
“In circumstances in which the builder assumes the design risk, provisions permitting the
buyer to approve plans and drawing for the vessel will not normally transfer the design
responsibility to him. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, the contract will often
incorporate an express term confirming that the builder’s design liabilities will be unaffected
by any approvals of plans and drawings issued by the buyer.”
但在某些情况下,船东代表去批准图纸会带来禁止翻供(estoppel)的说法,特别是船
东坚持对船厂提供的设计/图纸作出特定的修改,而且船厂最后也依照了船东的要求。
但之后带来了问题,这一来就可能会有不同的结果。毕竟,这不是一般性批准这么简单。
这方面可去节录 Simon Curtis 所著的《The Law of Shipbuilding Contracts》一书第三版 73
页所说的如下:
“The buyer’s approval of plans and drawings may, however, in certain circumstances
prevent (or ‘estop’) him from subsequently contending that elements of the vessel’s design as
developed by such plans and drawings are deficient or non-compliant with specifications. In
English law, where parties to a contract ‘act on an assumed state of facts or law, the
assumption being either shared by both or made by one and acquiesced in by the other ’
(Republic of India v India SS Co. Ltd. [No.2] [1998] A.C. 878), either may be prevented from
subsequently denying the truth of such assumption where it would be unjust to allow him to
do so. A ‘common assumption’ of this type may well occur in a shipbuilding context where a
plan or drawing is approved by the buyer as compliant with the Specifications and the builder
proceeds with construction of the vessel on the basis of such approval—depending upon the
facts, the buyer may in such circumstances be ‘estopped’ from demanding later changes to the
vessel on the grounds that the plans or drawings he has previously approved are not in fact
compliant.”
For these reasons, had I found in favour of Cenargo upon the point of construction, I would
not have found that they were precluded from putting forward their case.”
这样看来,造船合约有一条明示条文说明船东代表批准图纸不减少或豁免船厂对 设计
与建造船舶的责任是非常重要,因为它会去超越了法律默示的禁止翻供的说明。但在
SAJ 的相关条文 Article IV (1),并没有这样的规定。看来,在 SAJ 标准格式下船厂在这
种情况下还是有机会提出禁止翻供的争议。在 NEWBUILDCON 就有这样去针对,对船
东去批准图纸作出保障。这是在 Clause 20 (f),如下:
“(f) The Buyer’s approval or deemed approval of any Plans and Drawings shall not affect
the obligations of the Builder to design, construct and deliver, or the obligations of the Buyer
to take delivery of, and pay for, the Vessel in accordance with the other provisions of this
Contract; nor shall it diminish the Builder’s responsibility in respect of its obligations under
this Contract nor shall it constitute any acceptance by the Buyer of any responsibility for any
defect in the Vessel.”
上述的情况会在船东接船后在营运的时候发生因为设计不妥而造成的事故,自己蒙受
损失,要去根据造船合约的条文向船厂索赔。能否去这样做就要看造船合约的针对有关
交船后的条文了,答案应该是否,这已经在上一小段提到过。
8. 船厂的设计过程
在技术方面,笔者不敢多言,但是可以粗略地介绍一下船厂的设计过程。它往往是从一
个粗糙的初步设计而一步步发展为一个非常详尽,每一方面都有所针对的设计与绘图。
每一个阶段的设计都符合不同的作用。例如在最早期会是一个概念设计( conceptual
design),它针对的会是某一种船型及一些主要特征,船厂就会据此去设计/绘图如初
步的一般性结构(general arrangement),船舶横截面(mid-ship section),初步的规
范说明,初步的各种计算(船舶长短、水深、容量等)与初步的船体图纸(body plan)。
其他也会去加上是一些主要的设备,例如是主机等。概念设计主要的作用是让船厂可去
在市场中向客户推销,当时离开签订造船合约恐怕还是十分遥远。
第二个阶段可称为是初步设计(preliminary design),在这个阶段双方的谈判已经进入
了一个实质性的阶段,很有可能会产生一个要约。初步设计可以为合约提供足够的设计
特征以利双方去约定。它会包括:功能需求(functional requirements),也就是船舶需
要具有哪些功能;需要符合的规定(regulations),因为船舶难免需要符合一些规定,
例如船旗国或者船级社对此类船舶的规定等;设计标准(design standards)。买方在这
个阶段会提供一些公司与行业标准给船厂,包括:材料尺寸( material size)、模件
(modules)、工作航程(service runs)、艇架尺寸(block size)。而船厂就会据此去作
出自己的设计,包括一般性结构、船舶横截面、规范说明、各种计算、船体图纸、船舶动
力计算(propulsion arrangements)、船舶房间的设计(accommodation arrangements)、
机械设备的安排(machinery arrangements)、管道布置图(piping diagrams)、电容分析
(electrical-load analysis)以及图纸列表(plan list)。
第三个阶段是功能设计(functional design),这时造船合约已经达成,设计的重点因
而转向拿出足够细节的船舶设计来得到船东、船级社或有关当局的批准。这个阶段将会
给出整套的船级图纸。
再接下去的阶段会是详尽设计(detailed design),该阶段是把所有船舶的部分在它们
的功能需求与批准全部得到满足后,去进一步设计以进行各种工作如采购、部分进行建
造与事后去把它们安装/合并等方面。详尽设计通常是由船厂的图纸室(planning unit)
去进行,而一艘船舶会涉及了数以百份的图纸来针对各方面。
在这个过程中,船东的代表/总管会一直参与并且批准图纸。但已经介绍过,这不代表
船东会要去承担设计不妥的风险,去批准图纸也不会构成禁止翻供。撇开造船合约的写
法,针对第三者而言,也被接受这是一般的做法。这可去看一个近期的先例名为 The
“Happy Ranger” (2006) LMLN No. 685。该船舶是一艘吊重船,她在 1998 年 2 月 16 日由
船厂交给船东。该船舶就被安排去装运一台机器,重达 833 吨。在 1998 年 3 月 11 日,
在吊起机器的时候,吊机跌落,原因是有一个潜在的缺陷。这导致了重大的损坏,包括
了货物本身。该船舶的建造是经过劳合社去批准她的设计、规范说明与建造过程。船东
在面对货方的索赔,争辩说他不必对船厂、分包商、吊机生产商及劳合社等在建造过程
中的疏忽负责,因为他是 1998 年 2 月 16 日才接船。Gloster 大法官同意,认为在建造的
时候船舶还不属于船东,也在他的控制以外。虽然在交船前船长与大副已经上船,但这
只是为了去熟悉船舶的操作,至于在建造时候船东有代表在各种测验去参与,船东是
有权去交托测验的责任给吊车生产商与劳合社(that prior to 16 February 1998 the vessel
was not within the defendant’s ‘orbit’ (see W Angliss v. Peninsular and Oriental Steam
Navigation Co (1927) 28 Ll L Rep 139. The Kapitan Sakharov [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 255 and
The Muncaster Castle [1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 57). The fact that the master and/or chief officer
were on board the vessel prior to delivery for familiarization purposes did not mean that the
vessel passed into the defendant’s orbit prior to 16 February. Although the defendant had a
representative at the yard and present during the various tests, the defendant was, at the stage,
entitled to entrust the testing regime to the crane manufacturer and Lloyd’s)
9. 有关设计不妥的部分例子
这些例子会是多不胜数,但笔者不会在本书多谈技术问题。较早时已经举过的例子如
The “Amoco Cadiz” (1984) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 304 是 有 关 船 舶 的 舵 机 , Aktiebolaget
Gotaverken v. Westminster Corporation of Monrovia and Another (1971) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 505
是有关船舶的舱盖,而 Rasbora v J.C.L. Marine (1977) 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 645 就关系到一艘
由被告设计与建造的汽艇,并且有劳合社的批准,但不久后该汽艇在航行中发生火灾 ,
并变为全损,被指是不妥的设计或不妥的电路安装所导致的。
9.1 例子之一
9.2 例子之二
船东向被告索赔损失近 70 万英镑,指被告的凸轮轴“不适合用途”,是被告破坏了
1979 年《货物销售法》的 Section 14(3)。
9.3 例子之三
9.4 例子之四
9.5 例子之五
这是涉及了香港船东的一艘船舶,她在交船前的试航时看不出有什么毛病。但在交了船
之后,主机的涡轮增压器(turbochargers)出现问题,就是很容易过热(达至 400 摄氏
度)。这导致涡轮增压器的转速只能达到 15,000rpm,而不是设计的 20,000rpm。这表示
船舶的航速最高只能达到 12 节,而不是造船合约中所保证的 13.5 节。显然,这带来了
船东面对承租人的索赔与各种麻烦。问题应该是出在一个较小的喷嘴( nozzle),导致
涡轮增压器与主机不配套。船东与船厂之间的争议涉及了这是建造的缺陷或是设计上的
不妥,但看来由于船东过了担保期没有给船厂通知告知这个问题,所以船东要考虑去
向制造主机的分承包商以侵权起诉。最后这个事件的进一步进展笔者没有再去跟进了。
9.6 例子之六
10. 船东批准图纸
由于在本章已经在多处介绍过船东批准图纸的问题,所以,虽然这方面并非直接与设
计不妥有直接关系,也就顺便继续探讨这方面剩下的问题。
在 NEWBUILDCON,有关条文是第 20 条文如下:
“20 Approvals
The times and numbers specified in this Clause shall apply unless otherwise stated in the
Specification.
…
(b) The Builder shall dispatch to the Buyer a total of three (3) full sets of the Plans and
Drawings for the Buyer’s approval and shall also submit such other technical information as
the Buyer may reasonably require, not less than thirty (30) running days before any
construction works commence. The Builder shall give notice to the Buyer advising the date of
dispatch of the Plans and Drawings and the Buyer shall give notice to the Builder confirming
receipt thereof. The Buyer shall within fourteen (14) running days of receipt send to the
Builder one (1) set of the Plans and Drawings with the Buyer’s approval or approval with
comments, amendments or reservations.
In the event that the Buyer needs additional time to consider the Plans and Drawings
submitted pursuant to this Clause, it shall request the same in writing of the Builder whose
agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event that the Buyer’s comments,
amendments or reservations are unclear, unspecified or illegible, the Builder may give
clarification within five (5) running days of receipt of the Builder’s notice, the Builder shall
determine whether and to what extent it can adopt the comments, amendments or
reservations.
If requested by the Buyer in writing, the Plans and Drawings shall also be sent in an agreed
electronic format.
(c) The Builder shall take due note of the Buyer’s comments, amendments or reservations
(if any) on Plans and Drawings submitted pursuant to this Clause and, if such comments,
amendments or reservations are not of such a nature or extent as to constitute a modification
or change of the Specification within the meaning of Clause 24 (Modifications and Changes),
then the Builder shall commence or continue construction of the Vessel in accordance with
the corrected or amended Plans and Drawings.
(d) If the Builder considers the comments, amendments or reservations to the Plans and
Drawings are of a nature or extent that constitutes a modification or change under Clause 24
(Modifications and Changes), the Builder shall notify the Buyer accordingly and proceed in
accordance with Clause 24 (Modifications and Changes). If the Buyer disagrees the matter
shall be resolved in accordance with Clause 24(e).
(e) In the event that the Buyer fails to return any Plans and Drawings to the B uilder with
approval or approval with comments, amendments or reservations, if any, within the time
limit stated above, such Plans and Drawings shall be deemed to have been approved by the
Buyer.
(f) The Buyer’s approval or deemed approval of any Plans and Drawings shall not affect
the obligations of the Builder to design, construct and deliver, or the obligations of the Buyer
to take delivery of, and pay for, the Vessel in accordance with the other provisions of this
Contract; nor shall it diminish the Builder’s responsibility in respect of its obligations under
this Contract nor shall it constitute any acceptance by the Buyer of any responsibility for any
defect in the Vessel.
(g) The Builder shall give the Buyer, as soon as possible, copies of all relevant
correspondence relating to the Vessel to and from the Classification Society and the
Regulatory Authorities, together with all plans approved by the Classification Society.
10.2 两者的比较