合同案例的语境翻译及其应用──译hongkong firshipping co ltd v kawasaki kisen kaisha 有感-contextual translation of contract cases and its application ── reflections on translation of hong kong fir shipping co ltd v kawasaki kisen kaisha.docx

many of which involved delays caused by the breach of a shipowner’s obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch. An early example is Freeman v Taylor, where a ship had been chartered to take a cargo to the Cape of Good Hope, and then to make its way to Bombay to pick up a cargo of cotton. Instead of proceeding directly to Bombay from the Cape, the ship went via Mauritius, where it delivered a cargo of cattle on the owner’s account. This delayed its arrival in Bombay by six weeks, and the charterer refused to load. In an action by the owner on the charter, the jury were directed to consider whether the delay had deprived the charterer of the benefit of the contract, and they found that it had. It was held that this had been a proper direction, and a new trial was refused. A case which went the other way is MacAndrew v Chapple, where a ship was chartered ‘with all convenient speed… having liberty to take an outward cargo for owner’s benefit direct or on the way, to proceed to Alexandria and there load a full cargo of cotton.’ The ship deviated, and arrived at Alexandria a few days late. It was held that the delay afforded no justification for the charterer’s refusal to load, but that he was limited to a cross-action for damages. According to Willes J,It is… settled… that a delay or deviation which, as it has been said, goes to the whole root of the matter, deprive the charterer of the whole benefit of the contract, or entirely frustrates the object of the charterer in chartering the ship, is造成的合理发货延误。一个早期的例子是弗 里曼诉泰勒一案，船已经租好装货去好望角， 然后前往孟买装棉花。然而船舶并没有直接 从好望角去孟买，而是路经毛里求斯，交付 了船东运载的牛。结果，货船迟到孟买六个 星期，租船方因此拒绝装货。船东因此提出 起诉，陪审团受命考虑货船的延误是否直接 剥夺了租船方的合同利益。结果发现，的确 如此。这个结果是恰当的，因此重审被拒绝。 另一个异曲同工的案件是马坎德鲁诉查普尔 案，承租方所租的船 “以正常的行进速度... 前往亚历山大装载棉花，出于船东利益，可 顺路或装上一离港的货物。然而船偏离了行 程，并比预计迟了几天抵达亚历山大。判决 结果是，货船延误并不足以证明承租方拒绝 装货是合理的，他的权利也仅限于上诉要求 损害赔偿。维勒斯法官的陈述如下，“正如所说的，对于起诉没有装货的答辩， 需要解决的是延误或者航行偏离航线是否涉 及到事情的根本，即是否剥夺了承租方的所 有合同利益，还是承租方租船的合同标的完 全受挫。但这一损失，无论是因为延误到达an answer to an action for not loading a ca