全权代理委托书特此声明：自 2022 年 月 日起， ---------------------------, 即下方的签名人，特此全权授权 ----------------------以上述授权人的名义和合法的代理人的身份行事，代理关于如下船舶 的一切租赁等经营管理事宜。 VESSEL DESCRIPTIONNameIMO NOFlagYear Built 上述实际代理人应具有充分的权力和授权，代表授权人承担和执行包括但不限于以下行为:·代表船东准备、签署和提交相关航运文件·充当船东和租家之间的中介·代理签署船舶租赁合同，代理在租赁合同有效期内负责船舶的日常经营管理代理人同意接受此任命，忠实地、勤勉地履行代理职责，以符合授权人最佳利益的方式进行代理行为。本委托书自签署之日起生效，可由委托人在任何时候撤销。 授权人： 地址： 代理人： 地址： General Power of AttorneyKNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That, , the undersigned, do hereby grant a general power of attorney to , to act for and on its behalf as a true and lawful agent of the grantor for and in the name, place and stead of said grantor, for all management matters such as chartering of the following vessel ，starting from _day__ _month 2022. VESSEL DESCRIPTIONNameIMO NOFlagYear Built Said attorney-in-fact shall have full power and authority to undertake and perform acts on my behalf including, but not limited to, the following:·Prepare, sign and submit relevant shipping documentation on behalf of the Shipowners·Act as an intermediary between the Shipowners and Charterer·Signing the ship charter contract on behalf of the agent, and being responsible for the daily operation and management of the ship during the validity of the charter contractThe attorney-in-fact agrees to accept this appointment subject to its terms, and agrees to act and perform in said fiduciary capacity consistent with grantor’s best interest, as the attorney-in-fact in its discretion deems advisable. This power of attorney is effective upon execution, may be revoked by grantor at any time. Grantor： Address： Agent： Address： 委托人授权代表签字 For and on behalf of _____________________________________ （公司盖章 Sealed） 授权签字日期：2022年 月 日
Standard Form of the Association’s Security To: Date: Dear Sirs, Vessel:__________________________________________________________________Voyage/Port:_____________________________________________________________Date :___________________________________________________________________Incident/Cargo: _________________________________________________________Bills of Lading No.: _______________________________________________________Nature of Claim: _________________________________________________________ In consideration of and upon condition that you release and/or refrain from arresting or otherwise detaining the above vessel or any other vessel or property in the same or associated Ownership or Management to secure the above claim and that you refrain from commencing and/or prosecuting legal or arbitration proceeding (otherwise than before the court or tribunal referred to below) against the Owners of the above vessel their servants or agents, WE, XXX SHIPOWNERS MUTUAL ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION, at the request of_____________, hereby undertake to pay you any sum inclusive of interest and costs not exceeding US$_____________ (IN WORDS: ) which may either be agreed between the parties to be due to you in respect of the above claim or which may be adjudged to be due to you in respect of the above claim from the owners of the above vessel by a final unappealable arbitration award or by a final unappealable and enforceable judgement issued by a competent court. This letter of undertaking is hereby given without any prejudice whatsoever to the question of liability or to the amount involved or to any other matter in issue, including all rights and defences which may be available to owners and/or any rights of limitation of liability according to international conventions or local laws. Yours faithfully, The Managers forChina Shipowners Mutual Assurance Association
第一条本条在原合同的基础上，做了更偏向船东的约定，船东不确保因非船东原因，而导致船未能及时前往约定交船港（unless prevented or hindered by events beyond the Owners' control），本条修改应该是为了应对PACIFIC VOYAGER一案出现的争议。第二条 船东责任本条属于重大修改，目前限制船东的义务范围，明确了船东可以享受海牙规则下的免责，并且更明确的将范围扩大到包括货损在内的其他责任（in respect of loss, damage, delay and failure in performance）。第三条 货物本条是新增条款，规定了租家关于货物的义务，内容很长，并且区分了不同货种的具体要求。第四条 装货和卸货本条修改属于核心修改，明确要求租家，在船长的监督下，负责装卸货，安全配载的义务和责任，并且约定，如果因为需要确保船装卸货安全而产生的的额外费用，由租家承担。第九条 准备就绪通知书明确了船东可以在港内，或者指定地点，惯常锚地等地点递交NOR。增加了关于验舱的内容，即使后续验舱未通过，如果NOR已递交，船在等泊的话，仍然计算laytime和demurrage，并且在二次验舱通过前的时间，只有实际损失可以扣除（such time as is actually lost）。第十二条 装卸时间的计算本条明确了三种装卸时间需要计算的情形，第一种是非船东原因而发生的移泊时间，第二种是货物原因导致的装卸延迟，第三种是装货完成后，等待手续文件的时间。第十四条 取消合同条款本条的内容较原Bimco条款，有了更加细致与明确。第十六条 停止服务与解除合同条款本条创新性的增加了类似期租合同下，船东可以停止服务的内容，并且在96小时的通知期后，船东可以解除合同，并有权向租家主张补偿由此产生的一切损失（indemnify the Owners for all damages, losses, expenses or liabilities that they may incur as a result of the Owners exercising their rights under this Charter Party including any liability that the Owners may incur to third parties by doing so）。
FIMBank p.l.c. v. KCH Shipping Co. Ltd (Giant Ace)  EWHC 2400 (Comm) Background 本案涉及一艘从印尼运载一批煤炭前往印度的船舶。船东签发了不记名提单（Congenbill格式）。租约链上各方，指示船东将煤炭凭保函卸到码头堆场后放货。提单被抵押给了一家名为"FIMBank"的银行，该银行没有收到债务人还款，故凭正本提单起诉船东错误放货。FIMBank启动仲裁时，时间距货物卸下船已超过一年。仲裁庭于2021年9月1日作出裁决，该索赔已经超过海牙规则下，一年的诉讼时效。银行不服判决，根据1996年仲裁法第2(2)(b)条对2021年9月1日仲裁庭的部分最终裁决（“裁决”）提出上诉。This appeal relates to claims made by the Claimant ("FIMBank"), which is a trade finance bank headquartered in Malta regulated by the Maltese Financial Services Authority, against the Defendant ("KCH"), which is a Korean-incorporated company. The appeal is brought by permission of Butcher J given on 22 December 2021 pursuant to s.69(2)(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996 against the Partial Final Award (the "Award") of an Arbitral Tribunal dated 1 September 2021. FIMBank brings claims as holder of various bills of lading for misdelivery of cargo against KCH as carrier. The charterparty chain is described by Cockerill J in The Giant Ace  2 Lloyd's Rep 511 and need not be explained further for the purpose of the matters to be decided in this judgment. In short, the question of law that arises in this case is whether the limitation of liability in Article III, r.6 of the Hague Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery of cargo after discharge from the vessel. This question has not been decided previously by the courts in this jurisdiction, having been left open in The Alhani  2 Lloyd's Rep 563 at , and raises as Butcher J pointed out a matter of general public importance.The Award decided certain preliminary issues, so that the background facts have yet to be ruled upon. In brief, 13 sets of bills of lading dated 4 and 14 March 2018 on the Congenbill form were issued 'to order' for and on behalf of the Master of the M/V GIANT ACE for about 85,510MT in aggregate of coal in bulk. KCH had bareboat chartered in the vessel from Mirae Wise SA (a Panama company and the registered owner of the vessel) and the claim is brought against KCH as carrier. By way of incorporation from the charterparty, the bills of lading (as the Arbitral Tribunal held) were subject to the Hague-Visby Rules (the "Rules" which term also includes the Hague Rules depending on context), including the time-bar in Article III rule 6 of one year after delivery which applies to claims against the carrier. The coal was loaded in Indonesia and arrived at the Indian ports of Jaigarh and Dighi around two weeks later. It was discharged between 1 and 18 April 2018 against letters of indemnity which ran up the charterparty chain. It was then placed in discharge port stockpiles. What actually happened to it has not been explored in the facts before the court, and is in dispute. FIMBank appealed The Commercial Court decision (a) The First Issue FIMBank argued that the wording of Article III r.6 gave no immunities to carriers post-discharge. None of the provisions of the Rules contain or regulate an obligation to deliver. Therefore, they said, the carrier’s “period of responsibility” in relation to the goods under the Rules and the immunities provided to them ended when the goods were discharged from the vessel. After this, it was still open to the parties to contract into the Rules. As no such terms were contained in the current contract, FIMBank argued that the Rules did not apply and the one year time bar was therefore inapplicable. The Court rejected this argument and upheld the decision of the tribunal. Article III r.6 was designed to allow carriers to close their books after a year. The time bar contained in the Rules has consistently been given a broad construction to achieve finality and there was “no sound objective reason” for applying fine distinctions on discharge and delivery. The Court went on to emphasise the tribunal’s consideration that it was “not commercially sensible or even reasonable” for the carrier’s period of responsibility to end immediately post-discharge. Certainly, in the current case, FIMBank did not immediately present the bill of lading to the carrier when the goods were discharged. For the carrier to lose the protections provided by the Rules in circumstances where they had to hold the goods post- discharge for an undefined period would not make commercial sense. (b) The Second Issue The Court held that clause 2(c) did not operate to disapply the Rules after the discharge of goods. FIMBank sought to rely on The MSC Amsterdam, a 2007 case in which the Court of Appeal held that the bill of lading did indeed dis-apply the Rules. In this instance, the Court held that the terms of the current bill of lading had “materially different terms” to those considered in The MSC Amsterdam and the terms in question in that case did not consider Article III r.6. A similar decision to The MSC Amsterdam was not, therefore, warranted. The Court's reasoningThe Court upheld the tribunal's decision on both questions, and accordingly dismissed the appeal. On the first question, it concluded that, on its true construction, Article III r 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules applies to claims for misdelivery of cargo after discharge. The Court noted that this conclusion avoided the need for fine distinctions as to the point at which discharge ended, and accorded with the objective of the rule which was intended to achieve finality and to enable the shipowner to clear its books. It further observed that, although certain common law authorities and commentaries might be said to support the construction of Article III r 6 for which FIMBank contended (including Carver on Charterparties and Voyage Charters), there was no international judicial or academic consensus to that effect. The Court held that, even if its conclusion above was wrong, the tribunal's decision was in any event justified by its finding that the bills of lading contained an implied term providing that the Hague-Visby Rules obligations and immunities are to continue after actual discharge and until delivery takes place, in line with the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in The MSC Amsterdam  EWCA Civ 794. On the second question, the Court held that, on a proper construction, Clause 2(c) did not disapply the Hague-Visby Rules to the period after discharge. Although FIMBank relied in this regard on The MSC Amsterdam, in which the express terms of the bill of lading concerned were held to have disapplied the Hague Rules after discharge, the Judge held that that decision did not warrant a different result, insofar as it featured a bill of lading with materially distinguishable terms. Simon Rainey K.C. of Quadrant Chambers and Matthew Chan of Twenty Essex acted for KCH, instructed by Kyri Evagora and Thor Maalouf of Reed Smith LLP. The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. Comment The decision is important for parties involved in the carriage of goods by sea. It has confirmed that the immunities conferred by the Rules apply during the period between discharge and delivery. This is obviously good news for carriers and their insurers.It is, however, important to note that the case involved the particular contract in issue. Whilst a precedent has been set that the Rules in principle apply in the period after discharge until delivery, whether the parties have contracted out of the Rules will depend on the particular wording of the contract. The MSC Amsterdam shows that language that is substantially different to clause 2(c) of the Congenbill could result in a different conclusion.