| g naturally,i.e., according to the usual course of things, from such breach of contract itself, or such as may reasonably be supposed to have been in the contemplation of both parties, at the time they made the contract, as the probable result ofthe breach of it. Now, if the special circumstances under which the contractwas actually made where communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, andthus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such acontract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under thesespecial circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, ifthese special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking thecontract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract. For such loss would neither have flowed naturally from the breach of this contract in the great multitude of such cases occurring under ordinary circumstances, nor were the special circumstances, which, perhaps,would have made it a reasonable and natural consequence of such breach of contract, communicated to or known by the defendants. The Judge ought,therefore, to have told the jury, that, upon the fats then before them, they ought not to take the loss of profits into consideration at all in estimatingthe damages. There must therefore be a new trial in this case.
Charterers’ alleged claim which are wholly unknown to Owners, not in Owners’ contemplation before fix this shipment.Therefore this alleged claim is remoteness.
Hope above are clear and will be acceptable by the charterers.
For good order sake, Charterers are called upon to arrange remittance before arrival.
承租人声称的索赔是买家所谓的延迟交付货物的索赔，而其计算方式，系数x每吨货价x货量x天数。但在签订该合同的时候，出租人完全不知道会有这种索赔，该索赔并不在出租人的意料之中。如果承租人想索赔，必须在签订合同之前，明确告诉出租人，任何因船方的原因导致了延迟都将面临买家的索赔，出租人在得知该情况下，仍然签订合同；那么该索赔才会变得可追偿。如所援引的著名先例Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341案，在该案中，涉及的原告的工厂因蒸汽机的轴承断裂导致停产，于是委托被告出租人运送该轴承到另外一个地方的厂家再生产同样的轴承，但是被告出租人比原计划迟了几天才交到厂家，造成工厂比计划相应迟了几天才重新生产。原告于是找被告出租人索赔如果正常交付，可以提早几天恢复生产所能赚取到利润损失。但是法院判定，被告出租人延迟交付轴承，给工厂恢复生产造成延误所产生的利润损失是被告无法合理预料的，被告在签约当时并不知道原告没有备用轴承，更不知道延迟交付会随后造成延迟恢复生产而导致所谓的利润损失。Baron Alderson法官在判决中说到：我们认为目前适当的规则是这样的，如果双方签订了其中一方违约的合同，另一方应该就这种违约行为应得到的损害应该是公平的并且合理地被认为是自然地（即根据事物的通常过程）从这种违反合同本身引起的，或者在他们签订合同时可以合理地认为都在双方的预料之中，作为违反它的可能结果。现在，如果原告向被告传达并由双方知晓的合同实际发生的特殊情况，他们合理预期的违反合同的损害将是在通常所知和传达的特殊情况下违反合同通常会造成的伤害。但另一方面，如果这些特殊情况对于违约方来说完全是未知的，那么他最多只能在他的预期中考虑一般会出现的伤害的数量，而在众多案件不受任何特殊情况下的这种违约行为的影响。对于这种损失，在普通情况下发生的大量此类案件中，既不会因违反合同而自然流露，也不会由于这种特殊情况而导致违约的合理和自然的后果，传达给被告或被告知。因此，法官应该告诉陪审团，在摆在他们面前的丰满的事实前，他们根本不应该在估计损失时考虑利润损失，因此本案必须重新审判。
该先例是说损害赔偿的遥远性问题，似乎和索赔是否可从运费中抵扣关系不大，但如果连所谓的索赔都是过于遥远不可追偿的，那么承租人在运费中作抵扣即为非法。
出租人在卸货过程中采取关舱等进一步措施后，承租人最终退回所扣的款项。但有经纪人认为出租人这种做法会影响到声誉问题，但笔者认为，承租人这种不分青红皂白，从运费中乱扣的行为显得不够专业，更会影响到声誉问题。
假设在这个争议中，承租人所谓的索赔是成立的，那么是否可从运费中做抵扣呢？接下来先来看看几个先例。
|
中文
English
