来源：航运佬

之前文章所涉及的多是期租合同下的相关问题，其实租船合同通常分为三大类，一是光租合同，二是期租合同，三为程租合同。但随着经济贸易的不断发展，尤其是集装箱运输，还出现了货位租赁。程租合同是指出租人同意执行一次或多次指定的货物运输以换取运费和滞期费如有；运费即作为运输指定货物的报酬。为了赚取运费，除非另有约定，否则出租人必须将货物运到合同规定的目的地，并在卸货港完成货物交付。如果出租人未交付货物，则无法赚取运费；如果只交付了一部分货物，则只赚取该部分货物的运费。

    在期租合同下，如果承租人使用了船舶的服务，承租人必须对此支付租金；与此类似，在承租合同下，如果出租人将货物运抵卸港并交货物交付给收货人，那么承租人必须对此支付运费。当然运费支付条款多种多样，将另文再详细说明涉及运费支付的相关问题；本文只再讨论，索赔是否可以从运费中抵扣的问题。

本文还是和以前一样，从实际中所发生的情况说起。一条P轮，执行从印度尼西亚装载化肥到台湾卸，但是在印尼装港装货的过程中，由于舱盖的问题，打不开，导致了装货延误。但最终还是装完了离港，只是前后延误了3天时间。在提单签发后，出租人要求承租人依据合同第11条支付运费，该条款规定如下：

 

11. FREIGHTPAYMENT
(A) 95% FREIGHT LESS COMMISSIONS ON B/L(S) INTAKEN WEIGHT SHALL BE PAYABLEWITHIN 3 BANKING DAYS  AFTER SIGNING & RELEASING BILL(S) OFLADING MARKED "CLEAN ON BOARD" AND"FREIGHT PAYABLE AS PERC/P". 
(B) IN CASE "FREIGHT PREPAID" BILLS OF LADING ARE REQUIRED, AGENTS ATLOADING PORT TO BE IN CUSTODY OF BILL(S) OF LADING. BILL(S) OF LADING ARE TO BEIMMEDIATELY RELEASED UPON RECEIPT OF CHARTERER'S BANK CONFIRMATION THAT 100%FREIGHT, LESS COMMISSIONS HAS BEEN IRREVOCABLY REMITTED TO OWNER'S DIRECT BANKACCOUNT.

 

      但是承租人未按条款要求支付运费，从运费中扣下了所谓的因延误而遭受其买家的索赔，总共13,760.94美元。

Refer to theemail on 30 MAY 2018 sent by Hongda regarding the delayed cause by vessel hatchand we have incurred the penalty from our buyer.

So we haveto claim back from owner back to back as follow.  

0.25% perday x USD278 x 6,599.972MT x 3 days.

被扣运费的出租人需求援助，笔者于是草拟如下电邮，先拒绝承租人在运费中做任何扣减。

 

Dear Sir,

Good day!
Duly noted charterers’ last, but regret that Owners are unable to agree the charterers to make any deduction from freight payment.

First of all, It’s well established that not every cross claim could be deducted from freight payment. Charterers may refer to The “Brede”,[1973] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 333 ( H.L) and The “Aries”,[1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep.334(H.L), Where House of Lord upheld decision of The “Brede” case.

And《Scruttonon Charterparties》which provides:

The freighter will not be entitled to make deductions from the freight for the damage.

 

Secondly, Charterers’ alleged claim which is remoteness. For this Charterers please refer to leading case Hadley v. Baxendale(1854) 9 Ex. 341,   Where JusticeBaron Alderson said in his judgement as below:

 

Now we think the proper rule is such as the present is this: Where two parties have made a contract which one of them has broken, the damages which the other party ought to receive in respect of such breach of contract should be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered either arisin