第7章 装港和卸港.docx

第7章 装港和卸港在本书第四章提到的了船东在明示条款中承诺的绝对或严格的义务包括开航去约定的装港及装了货物后开往约定的卸港。金康格式第1条是这样写的：The said vessel shall proceed to the loading port or place stated in Box 10 or so near thereto as she may safely get and lie always afloatand being so loaded the vessel shall proceed to the discharging port or place stated in Box 11 as ordered on signing Bills of Lading or so near thereto as she may safely get and lie always afloat1 租约与买卖合约的关系程租租约规定的装港和卸港必须与之前已经订立的买卖合约相匹配。买卖合约会有可能会明确载明装港和卸港，但也可能只是约定一个比较广泛的区域（例如是美湾或是上海以北的中国港口），这可能是由于FOB的卖方有几个可能的交货地点，不能太早去确定向买方交货的地点，希望等到在买方要派船时才作出决定是哪一个装港。在Bunge v Tradax 1981 2 Lloyds Rep 1.一案中，买卖玉米的合约采用FOB价格条款，装港是：FOB one US Gulf port at Sellers option stowed/trimmed，另外还有条款要求买方给予15天的派船通知，而卖方则可以在此后的合理时间内决定装港。在这种情况下，作为承租人的FOB买方在订立租约时就应当确保租约的装港是美湾的一个港口。卸港的约定和装港应当是一样的。在The Rio Sun 1985 1 Lloyds Rep 350.一案中，按照买卖合约的规定，CIF买方有权决定卸货地点：Delivery will be made on a CIF basis to Buyers required destination allowed by the above options.而在The Epaphus 1987 2 Lloyds Rep 215.一案中，买卖合约则是明确约定卸港为“一意大利主要港口”。买卖合约中负责租船的一方在洽谈租约时应当确保租约的规定和买卖合约的规定相吻合。这吻合不仅指关于港口的规定要吻合，在其他方面的规定也要吻合，例如可使用多少泊位，指定港口的时限，以及指定卸港后或在提单已填上了卸港后是否可以更改等。下文将针对这些问题进行详细的论述。在买卖合约中，关于装卸港的规定应当是条件条款 (condition)。因此，FOB卖方在与买方约定了装港以及装货地点后却无法交货的即构成违约，而且违反的是买卖合约的条件条款，正如Colman法官在Petrotrade Inc v Stinnes Handel GmbH一案中所指出的： 1995 1 Lloyds Rep 142 at 149.In a FOB contract where the buyer has to nominate the ship the precise identification of the delivery point is vital to the buyer. In order to take delivery he in turn has to enter into a contract of affreightment with a carrier which exactly matches the sale contract. If he has chartered a ship to load at a given port where the goods are to be delivered to the ship under the sale contract it is at that port and only at that port that he can require the chartered ship to load. He is not entitled to nominate another port unless the charter-party provides for a loading port range. It will not necessarily do so. The response that he may be able to persuade the carrier to go to a nearby port for a modest extra payment which would be recoverable from the seller in damages is nothing to the point. The fact is that in FOB contracts when the buyer has to nominate the ship the need for the precise matching of the contract of affreightment with the contract of sale, both as to timing and as to place of shipment, is essential and obvious in all cases.从上述判例可以看得出，如果承租人要求船舶驶往租约规定以外的港口，即使就是在附近，船东也不必就范。遇到此种情形，船东一般会是乘机敲一笔，漫天开价。如果承租人仍不投降，船东可以其毁约而终止租约。因此，如果遇到装港或卸港不太稳定，地区范围很大，买卖合约明示允许对方更改指定港口等的情况，派船一方洽谈程租合约可能就会比较困难，仅仅是不同航次会产生不同运费这一点就已经够麻烦的了，除非是油轮的租约可以根据油轮运价表 (Worldscale)。另一个办法是派船一方（如FOB买方）干脆采用期租的方式替代程租。2 租约中的装卸港口与地点2.1 装卸港口在程租租约内，船东和承租人往往会约定一个明确的港口，例如上海，做为装港或卸港；也有可能会约定几个可供选择的港口，如上海、新港或大连；还有的则是约定一区域并在该区域内选择一个装港或卸港，比如新加坡至日本范围。当然，租约约定的区域的范围不应太广，因为向任何方向行走，从新加坡或从东京出发运费会有很大的不同。如果租约规定可以选择港口的，选择权应当是在承租人的手中，正如Willmer法官在Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food一案中所说的： 1961 1 Lloyds Rep 385 at 419. the principle is well established that where a charterparty provides a choice of named places for loading or discharge, the charterer is free to exercise his option as he chooses, and in doing so is in no way bound to consult the convenience of the shipowners所以，即使承租人选择的港口在距离上比较远，在费用上比较贵，只要租约允许，船东不得有怨言。在租约没有作出特别规定的情况下，英国法律的默示地位是承租人只能选择使用一个港口。 Anglo-Danubian Transport Company, Ltd v Ministry of Food (1949-50) 83 Ll L Rep 137. 因此，如果承租人希望能使用一个以上港口的就应当在租约内作出明确的规定。此种情况通常会发生在一些内河的港口，例如美国的哥伦比亚河，密西西比河、德国的威塞河等，港口在这些内河里的租约一般会有如下规定：One, two or up to three ports in the U.S. North Pacific (Colombia River District, including Portland and Puget Sound District) at charterers option已经提到过，除非租约允许承租人使用数个装港或卸港，否则承租人只能使用一个装港或卸港。承租人希望使用一个以上港口的要求多半会遭到船东的拒绝，或者承租人不得已要为此支付额外的费用，因为增加挂靠港口对船东而言既增加时间又产生额外的港口费用。即使两个港口相距很近或者在“习惯”（但很难证明）上被当做一个港口来对待，承租人也未必可以增加一个挂靠港口。“港口”(port) 似乎并没有统一的定义，在Sailing Ship “Garston” Co v Hickie & Co一案中，上诉庭认为租约中的“港口”应当根据其流行的，或者商业的用法上予以解释，而不应当从财政的或领航的目的予以解释。Brett法官先说道港口应可以允许船舶安全装卸： (1885) 15 QBD 580 at 588.20Now, what will such a port be? What do you go to a port for? Because you want either to load or to unload goods. Every one who understands ships knows that you cannot conveniently load or unload goods in a place where the ship itself would be in danger. Therefore all people possessed of common sense, instead of taking their boats on to a beach on an open sea, where they might be knocked to pieces in a storm, go to what they call a port, which is always a sheltered place. It is a place of safety for the ship and the goods, whilst the goods are being loaded or unloaded. There will never be a port, in the ordinary business sense of the word, unless there is some element of safety in it for the ship and goods. Now what will constitute a port as regards the loading and unloading of goods, and the safety of the ship during the process? What will more certain to be a port, in the sense of all persons concerned in the use of it, than a natural port? That is, a place in which the conformation of the land with regard to the sea is such that, if you get your ship within certain limits, she is in a place of safety for loading and unloading. That is almost certain to be the port of that place in a business sense.Brett法官接下去说，商业上的港口的定义：What do they intend? They intend the port as commonly understood by all persons who are using it as a port, i.e. for sailing to and from it with goods and merchandise. What persons are they? Shippers of goods, charterers of vessels, and shipowners. What do all these persons in their ordinary language mean by a “port”? What they understand by the word is the port in its ordinary sense, in its business sense, in its popular sense - i.e. the popular sense of such persons. It is also the port in its commercial sense, for, with them, business means commercial business.Brett大法官也提到，一般需要有一个独立的港口当局去管辖：Then, if you want to find out how far the port extends beyond the place of loading and unloading, what is the next test you would apply? If you find that the authorities, who are known in commercial business language as “the port authorities”, are exercising authority over ships within a certain space of water, and that the shipowners and shippers who have ships within that space of water are submitting to the jurisdiction which is claimed by those authorities, whether legally or not, whether according to Act of Parliament or not, if you find what are called “the port authorities” exercising port discipline and the ships which frequent that water submitting to the port discipline so exercised, that seems to me the strongest possible evidence that the shipowners, the shippers, and the port authorities (that is, the persons connected with the locality), have all come to the conclusion to accept that space of water in which that authority is so exercised and submitted to as “the port” of the place.举例说，如果上海港的港口当局不能去管辖长江口，就表示船舶到了长江口并不能说是到了上海港，这就是Brett大法官上述说法中所强调的。上诉庭的Kennedy法官曾在Leonis Steamship Co Ltd v Rank Ltd一案中对租约中的所谓“港口”(port) 作出了如下说明: 1908 1 KB 499 at 520.If we find a charterparty naming a “port” simply, and without further particularity or qualification, as the destination for the purpose of loading or unloading, we must construe it in regard to the “arrival” of the ship at that destination as meaning that port in its commercial sense, that is to say, as it would be understood by persons engaged in shipping business, and in regard to the arrival of a ship there for the purposes of the charterparty. In the case of a small port, “port” may or may not mean the whole of the geographical port. In the case of a widely extended area, such as London, Liverpool or Hull, it certainly signifies some area which is less than the geographical port, and which may, I think, not unfittedly be called the commercial area.在这个问题上最后希望提一下的是：有些地方的小港口没有海关，船舶必须先在其附近的港口清关后才能前往。虽然船舶实际上是挂靠了两个港口，但就装货或卸货而言，船舶只使用了一个港口，承租人的行为应当不会构成违约。2.2 装卸地点装卸地点 (place of loading/discharge) 通常是指一个装卸港口或实际装货或卸货的具体泊位。换言之，地点一词与港口或泊位是同义。但“地点”也是一个比较宽松的词，表示不是所有装卸的地点都会是被视为是一个港口。 The “Stork” (1955) 1 Lloyds Rep 349如果租约已明确规定了装、卸港口（port），承租人就只能去在港口内进行装卸。如果承租人安排在港口外的外锚地 (outer anchorage)以驳船去进行部分装货（例如装港因为水深的问题，需要船舶半载去外锚地完成满载后才起航去卸港）或卸货（通常是为了轻载），除非这是习惯做法（但这习惯很难去证明），承租人会违约，因为外锚地不是约定的装卸港口，正如Voyage Charters一书说： Julian Cook et al, Voyage Charters 3rd edition, informa 2007, p 104.Where a “port” is specified, it may not encompass the roads, where lighterage, even customary lighterage, takes places if the only purpose is to lighten in order to enable the vessel safely to reach the named port. The Alhambra (1881) 6 P.D. 68同样的道理下如果租约明确规定了港口内的装卸泊位（berth），承租人也只能去使用泊位把货物装上船或卸到岸上去，除非当地有习惯做法是以驳船对挂靠在泊位的船舶进行装卸。这也是在Voyage Charter一书中同一页所说的：Even where lightening may be a customary method, if the parties complete the box expressly with a reference to a “berth”, the use of lighters would not be contractual save where lighters are customarily used for cargo handling alongside berthed vessels.租约没有写明的，除非当地的习惯是在锚地装卸货，否则船东有权拒绝在非习惯性的锚地装货或卸货。与锚地装卸货有密切关系的是装卸作业，显然在锚地装卸货通常就离不开要使用驳船。这一来如果是有关港口的习惯做法，看来是船东必须接受，不能坚持把货卸到岸上去。正如Kennedy法官在Grey v Butlers Wharf Ltd一案中所说的： (1898) 3 Com Cas 67 at 68.It is clear law, in my opinion, that, in the absence of any custom or express contract to the contrary, the shipowner is bound to deliver into lighters if the consignee is ready to take delivery into lighters, and is not entitled to insist on discharging into warehouses or other places so as to involve the consignee in the expense of warehouse or landing charges.上述所讲的问题例如用驳船进行装卸货物，现在在大宗货的散装货运输中也比较少发生，因为都会是需要靠泊以岸上机械去装卸。但承租人要小心的倒是较早时提到的“地点”（place）一词是比较宽松，该词看起来并不局限在港口（port）而会去包括外锚地甚至是公海。正如Voyage Charter所说的： Julian Cook et al, Voyage Charters 3rd edition, informa 2007, p 103.It may also arise in the context of disputes about whether a charterer may order a vessel to load or discharge into barges or lighters at a lightering position or an anchorage. There is no reason in principle why such a position could not be a “place” even though it is in the open sea.这一点承租人必须小心，尤其是今天在公海进行装卸的情况也并不少见，特别是针对油轮。如果只约定装卸港就会有限制。如果在港口后加上“地点”一词，好像金康租约，就会给承租人履约的灵活性。当然如果装卸货是在海上以大船靠大船转驳，承租人更是除了规定“地点”外也要在租约内明确约定允许这一种作业。因为此种作业有可能会带来额外风险，所谓是两艘大船之间的碰撞造成的ranging damage。这种作业也会涉及加保费并且船东会要接受更高的免赔额，因此船东与承租人在订立有关租约条文时就应当就加保条件及其保费等问题作出约定。另一个承租人要注意是如果没有在租约中明确可以使用多少个“港口”或是“地点”或是“泊位”，法律默示的地位是他只能用一个港口与该港内的一个地点/泊位 The Felix (1868) L.R. 2 A. & E. 273; Anglo-Danubian Transport Company, Ltd v Ministry of Food (1949-50) 83 Ll L Rep 137去完成装货或卸货。但往往是只能使用一个装货或卸货地点可能不够，也缺乏灵活。加上有各种无法预见的原因都可能会导致承租人在同一港内不得不使用多于一个地点或泊位，例如暂时没有仓库空出来，船被迫移出锚地再稍后靠泊，回来时停靠在另一个泊位去继续卸货。在通常情况下，承租人在同一港口内有权多使用几个装卸地点一般不会影响运费。因此，承租人经常会在租约内规定1至3个泊位或锚地。而如果装港是两个的话，例如上海及新港，每一港口都可以1至3个泊位或锚地，在租约中一般会写作：1, 2 or up to 3 berths and/or anchorage each, Shanghai and Xingang.2.3 出纠纷的例子关于装货或卸货地点的纠纷并不少见，这里可以举The Ypatia Halcoussi案例为例。在该案中，租约规定船舶应去下列港口装货：. . . one, two, three or four safe ports, one or two safe berths each in the U.S. North Pacific (Columbia River District, including Portland and Puget Sound District) at charterers option, and there load . . . a full and complete cargo of wheat . . . in bulk.船舶在哥伦比亚河上的Portland挂靠了2个泊位，另在Longview和Kalama各挂靠了1个泊位，这些泊位都是专门装载小麦的泊位，有自己的粮仓。显然，根据双方在租约中的约定，如果Portland、Longview和Kalama视为是独立的港口，承租人是完全没有违约，因为他是允许去使用多至4个港口。至于在Portland挂靠的2个泊位，也是没有问题，因为租约中的约定是每一个港口可使用1至2个泊位。但希腊船东还是想到办法去向承租人索赔，他的主张是船舶已经挂靠了4个泊位，虽然只是使用了1个港口。承租人虽然可以去使用多至4个港口，但选择了只使用1个港口，是承租人放弃权利。虽然承租人只用了1个港口，但并不能以港口冲抵泊位。同理，承租人也不能将一个港内未用完的泊位去用在其他港口，而在其他港口使用多于合约规定的2个泊位。这是因为要严格按照合约的明示约定行事，怎样写就怎样办，不存在合理不合理。而根据该租约，在只使用1个港口的情况下，承租人在该港最多只能使用2个泊位。如果承租人使用了4个泊位，多出的2个泊位就是违约，因此承租人应当支付相关的费用，例如是移船费用。这移船的费用也不会少，因为Portland到Kalama的距离为50英里左右，而自Kalama到Longview的距离则大约为12英里，涉及的时间损失与燃油费用就一大笔，更不用说还有领航员与驳船等的费用。而承租人的抗辩与立场是他并没有违约，因为Portland、Longview和Kalama是3个不同的港口，其中最主要的依据是这3个港口都有各自独立的港口当局。由此看出双方的主要争议是Portland，Kalama以及Longview是1个港口还是3个独立的港口。仲裁员支持了船东的主张，依据的是一份印刷的文件，该文件的名称是“Customs of Port”，该文件有下列内容：These customs are applicable to vessels loading in the Columbia River District, which shall be considered as one port and includes grain berths from Astoria, Oregon, to Portland, Oregon, including Longview, Kalama and Vancouver, Washington.但高等法院推翻了仲裁员的裁决，认为仲裁员在解释租约时是犯了几个方面的错误。第一是，即使有把美国哥伦比亚河的港口都视为是1个港口这样的习惯性解释，这种解释也只能在租约中约定含糊的时候去做出协助解释。在租约有明确的明示约定下，例如是本租约，不存在让这种习惯性解释去改变或补充明示的写法。这习惯性解释充其量也只是一个默示的地位，而且十分不合理。因为去哥伦比亚河的4个地点，不论他们相距多远，都变了是4个泊位，而不是4个港口。再说在租约中写明承租人可以在哥伦比亚河区域去使用多达4个港口，包括了Portland与Puget Sound区域.而根据船东的解释，这4个港口的规定就变了没有任何意义。至于船东的争辩指双方在订约时应该知道这一个习惯性解释的事实 对于有争议或不明确的条文，英国法律是可以根据双方订立合约时都知道的事情，包括所谓的factual matrix去做出解释。其中的重要先例有The “Diana Prosperity” (1976) 2 Lloyds Rep. 621等，在我的合约的解释一书第六章之10.2段有详细介绍。，法院判是没有证据显示承租人在缔约时知道有该文件的存在，因此不能以该文件为依据对租约条款进行解释。Hirst法官说： 1984 2 Lloyds Rep 455 at 459.Here the terms are clear and there is consequently no room for praying in aid these documents emanating from local merchants in the Columbia River area in order to vary or contradict that plain construction. I would add that there is no evidence that either of the parties had any knowledge of those documents at all. If it were permissible to go to such documents (which, in my judgment, it is not), I do not, with respect, find convincing the umpires reasoning in favour of using the owners documents but rejecting the charterers: it does not seem to me that, if you are looking at what is a port and what is not a port, it makes the slightest difference what particular commodity is being loaded or dealt with at that place.2.4 地理上的顺序如果承租人有权指定与使用多于一个装港或卸港的，这些装港或卸港的顺序会对船东产生很大的影响，例如从日本开来中国两个装港，承租人先去了广州，再要船舶回航去大连。可能因为从备货、配货、码头优先，港口拥挤 Mallozzi v Carapelli SpA 1976 1 Lloyds Rep 407，港口/泊位限制（例如水深）等方面考虑，只有这样装才对承租人方便，但租约如果允许承租人去做出这样的选择显然给船东制造了很大的麻烦与额外使费。这一个问题也涉及其他的说法，就是租约如果没有明确承租人有权去决定两个或多个装港或卸港的地理顺序，承租人会否有权去在一个航次的执行中对船长做出这样的命令？但指定船舶挂靠港口与指定港口的顺序会是很难分开，经常是承租人在指定挂靠港口时往往也包括了港口的顺序，如承租人指定第一个卸港是韩国仁川，第二个卸港是日本大阪，或者倒过来说第一个卸港是日本大阪，第二个卸港是韩国仁川。之前的Voyage Charters一书认为，在租约允许承租人指定一个以上港口的情况下，承租人负有一个默示义务，即应当按照港口的地理顺序指定船东需要挂靠的港口。但是最新一版的Voyage Charters一书在针对两个或以上装/卸港的顺序问题，是去强调程租合约与期租合约本质完全不同，承租人是没有权去向船长指定怎样履行这一个航次。这是根据The “Eurus” (1998) 1 Lloyds Rep 351先例等一系列的先例，在该先例，Staughton大法官是这样说：The charter-party certainly contemplates that the charter-party may give some orders, such as the nomination of loading and discharging ports, the quantity of cargo, and whether it shall comprise one or two grades of oil. There is also an express term (Scanport cl.6) allowing the charterers to divert the vessel during the voyage- at their expense. No doubt on many occasions a shipowner will be prepared to acquiesce in an order which the charterer could not otherwise insist upon, provided that the shipowner is recompensed. But this was a voyage charter-party, not a time charter. The owners contracted for a voyage that was more or less defined in return for the freight specified. I can think of quite a number of reasons why in other circumstances they might not have wished to accept the charterers orders- delay to their next engagement, for example, or imminent bad weather on the voyage, war, or political interference.看来，除非航次租约是规定了装卸港，否则承租人有权去决定与指定船舶应当挂靠港口（与泊位） 可见本章2.1段与承租人是否有权去进一步决定两个或多个挂靠港口的顺序有一些微妙的差别，虽然两者是有密切的关系。原因是程租租约下承租人对有关航次的履行是没有权去做出航次命令，而除非租约有明示规定，港口的地理顺序是涉及了航次的履行。看起来Voyage Charters一书也是这样认为： Julian Cook et al, Voyage Charters 3rd edition, informa 2007, p 109.Where the charter provides for the charterer to nominate two or more ports it does not automatically follow that he is also entitled to specify the order in which the ports shall be visited, since under a voyage charter the charterer has no general power to give orders as to the way in which the vessel undertakes the voyage.当然在订约自由的大原则下，承租人可以通过千变万化的写法去改变这一个法律地位，例如是用“承租人有权选择1-3个安全港口，任何地理次序（in any order）”的措辞明确规定他才有权决定多个装卸港的先后，不管是否按照地理的顺序；或是在租约中规定船长必须按照承租人做出的航次命令行事，只要该航次命令符合租约与习惯做法，这好像在The “Eurus”一案中的油轮航次租约就有一条36条款如下：Owners shall be responsible for any time, costs, delays, or loss suffered by Charterers due to failure to comply fully with Charterers voyage instructions provided such instructions are in accordance with the Charter Party and custom of trade.但通常在散装货的航次租约中是没有The “Eurus”一案中的这种条款规定，而通常只去简单的约定例如是“1-3个安全港口”，这看来是船东可以去自己决定。虽然在一般的情况会是按照港口的地理顺序，但也不一定，反正这是根据船东自己的方便（例如考虑下一个交船地点或是修船地点）。所以，租约中最好有条款针对谁有权决定港口顺序或者约定一个双方都不能偏离的固定顺序。如果承租人错误地假设他有权选择港口顺序，船东可以不理会承租人的命令而坚持按照租约办事。即使船东“服从”了承租人的命令，他也有权获得合理的额外运费或者要求损失赔偿。更会是一个精明的船东会在“服从”命令之前，趁机去敲承租人一笔费用才肯去合作。今天的航次租约中经常会去做出多个港口必须是按照地理顺序（geographical rotation）的规定。而如果没有明示规定，在有争议的情况下法院或仲裁庭也会根据租约其他的条文去做出假设或默示。在Pilgrim Shipping Co Ltd v The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd (The Hadjitsakos) 1975 1 Lloyds Rep 356.一案中，程租租约规定的是一载温哥华或者穆迪港至印度的15,000吨硫磺：1/2 safe ports/safe anchorages Full India, coasts to be combinable . . . and there deliver the cargo.租约第18条还有如下针对不同印度卸港运费的规定：Freight to be paid at the following rates basis 5,000 long tons load:(1) U.S.$11.15 . per ton if discharges one safe port or safe anchorage East Coast India.(2) U.S.$11.40 . per ton if discharges two safe ports or safe anchorages East Coast India.(3) U.S.$11.50 . per ton if discharges one safe port or safe anchorages West Coast India.(4) U.S.$11.75. per ton if discharges two safe ports or safe anchorages West Coast India.(5) U.S.$11.75 . per ton if discharges one safe port or safe anchorage East Coast India and one safe port or safe anchorage West Coast India.船舶在穆迪港装了15,705吨硫磺后驶过了新加坡后，承租人指定孟买和加尔各答为第一和第二卸港。船东认为承租人不能按照该顺序指定，因为船舶是由东而来，从地理上来说应当先挂靠加尔各答，然后再挂靠孟买。毕竟，船东只能是收取同一笔运费，如果先去孟买然后再去加尔各答，时间与成本会是多出很多。表面看来好像是对船东很不公平，但估计承租人也有他的困难，因为加尔各答有吃水的问题，如果先去挂靠该港就会产生需要轻载的问题。所以，讲公道是解决不了问题，最后还是要看租约是怎样规定。仲裁员认为承租人不能如此指定，应该按顺序先去加尔各答再去孟买，但还是将承租人是否可以作出如此指定的法律问题交给了法院 这是按照1950年英国仲裁法下的“special case”程序，在1979年仲裁法的修改后与目前的1996年英国仲裁法中，这一个程序已经被向法院申请取得上诉至法院的批文的程序（leave to appeal）所替代。一审法院的Mocatta法官认为从租约的规定来看，承租人可以有权指定孟买为第一卸货港，加尔各答为第二卸货港，因为租约中没有对承租人的指定有任何局限。上诉庭则以多数意见（Roskill法官持异议）认为承租人不可以这样指定，Lord Denning认为关于条款的解释是事实问题 1975 1 Lloyds Rep 356 at 360-361，就合约条款的解释是事实问题还是法律问题，英国法似乎倾向于认为是法律问题，见Andre et Cie SA v Cook