Introduction 介紹
Our Americas Members often deal with contracts of carriage subject to the US Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”) and the Harter Act (contractually or by force of law). Although these Acts have been in place for over a hundred years, the implication of each on an ocean carrier’s liabilities are still not always clear, especially if implied contractually.
我們的美洲會員經常處理受美國海上貨物運輸法 （“COGSA”） 和哈特法案 （合同或法律效力） 約束的運輸合同。儘管這些法案已經實施了一百多年，但每個法案對海運承運人責任的影響仍然並不總是很清楚，尤其是在合同中暗示的情況下。
We recently asked our correspondents, Freehill Hogan and Mahar LLP in New York, to provide updated insight on COGSA and the Harter Act in general, as well as within the scope of Club cover. Their comments follow.1 The Club is of course also available at all times to discuss any queries Members may have relating to US COGSA and the Harter Act.
我們最近請了紐約的通訊員 Freehill Hogan and Mahar LLP 提供有關 COGSA 和《哈特法案》的一般情況以及俱樂部承保範圍的最新見解。他們的評論如下。 1 當然，俱樂部也隨時可以討論會員對美國 COGSA 和哈特法案可能產生的任何疑問。
FAQs on The Harter Act and COGSA:
關於哈特法案和 COCSA 的常見問題解答：
When will the Harter Act or COGSA apply by force of law? When it applies by force of law, can it be excluded or modified, in whole or part, by clear contractual wording?
Harter 法案或 COGSA 何時依法適用？當它通過法律效力適用時，它可以通過明確的合同措辭全部或部分排除或修改嗎？
COGSA, as enacted in 1936, applies statutorily to all contracts of carriage of goods by sea to or from ports of the United States in foreign trade, during the period from the time when the goods are loaded on to the time when they are discharged from the ship. 46 U.S.C. § 30701 note, § 13 and § 1(e). This is commonly referred to as the “tackle-to-tackle” period of the voyage.
1936 年頒布的 COGSA 在法律上適用於從貨物裝船到卸船期間的所有對外貿易中往返美國港口的海上貨物運輸合同。《美國法典》第 46 卷第 30701 條註釋、第 13 條和第 1（e） 條。這通常被稱為航程的「鏟球到鏟球」 期。
Additionally, COGSA only applies to contracts of carriage covered by a bill of lading or any similar document of title, and, by its terms, is not applicable to on deck or private carriage. Id. at § 1(b), (c).
此外，COGSA 僅適用於提單或任何類似擁有權文件所涵蓋的運輸合同，並且根據其條款，不適用於甲板上或私人 carriage.Id。§ 1（b）、（c）。
Similarly, the Harter Act, enacted in 1893, applies to the carriage of goods to or from any port in the United States. 46 U.S.C. § 30702. However, COGSA supersedes the Harter Act with respect to the “tackle-to-tackle” period for international shipments. Although U.S. courts recognize that COGSA sharply curtailed the applicability of the Harter Act, the Harter Act may still govern during the period prior to loading and after discharge of cargo until proper delivery is made, unless COGSA is extended contractually.
同樣，1893 年頒布的《哈特法案》適用於進出美國任何港口的貨物運輸。 《美國法典》第 46 卷第 30702 條。 但是，COGSA 在國際貨物的「處理到處理」期限方面取代了《哈特法案》。 儘管美國法院承認 COGSA 大大限制了《哈特法案》的適用性，但《哈特法案》仍可在貨物裝貨前和卸貨后適用，直到正確交付，除非 COGSA 在合同上延長。
In that regard, it is very common for ocean carriers to include clauses in their bills of lading contractually extending COGSA coverage to periods before loading and after discharge.
在這方面，海運承運人在其提單中加入合同條款，將 COGSA 覆蓋範圍擴大到裝貨前和卸貨後的時間段是很常見的。
As another distinguishing factor, the Harter Act is not compulsorily applicable to any inland portion of carriage pursuant to a through bill of lading, i.e. “proper delivery” under the Harter Act does not mean delivery to the ultimate consignee at the end of intermodal transportation. It means delivery to the inland carrier.
作為另一個區別因素，《哈特法案》不強制適用於根據直通提單運輸的任何內陸部分，即《哈特法案》下的“適當交付”並不意味著在多式聯運結束時交付給最終收貨人。 這意味著交付給內陸承運人。
(By contrast, when COGSA has been extended under a through bill of lading to cover the period before loading and after discharge, delivery occurs when the goods are made available to the consignee at the designated inland delivery point.)
（相比之下，當 COGSA 根據直通提單延長以涵蓋裝貨前和卸貨後的時間時，當貨物在指定的內陸交貨點提供給收貨人時，即發生交貨。
As to limitation of liability, while the Harter Act invalidates provisions in an ocean carrier’s bill of lading absolving the carrier for its own negligence, the statute permits contractual provisions limiting a carrier’s liability.
關於責任限制，雖然《哈特法案》使海運承運人提單中免除承運人自身疏忽的條款無效，但該法規允許限制承運人責任的合同條款。
Thus, for example, contractual per package limitations of liability for periods before loading and after discharge from the vessel are permissible under the Harter Act as long as they provide for some liability and do not exculpate the carrier. Moreover, the shoreside contractual extension of COGSA in bills of lading will permit the carrier to rely upon COGSA’s $500 per package limitation (or other limitation contractually provided).
因此，例如，根據《哈特法案》的規定，只要它們規定了一些責任並且不免除承運人的責任，就可以在裝船前和卸貨后按合同規定的責任限制。此外，提單中 COGSA 的岸上合同延期將允許承運人依賴 COGSA 的每個包裹 500 美元的限制（或合同規定的其他限制）。
To the extent the Harter Act or COGSA apply as a matter of law, neither statute can be excluded and thus set the floor as to required terms. However, carriers are certainly able to provide more favorable contractual terms to cargo interests than afforded by the statutes insofar as, for example, stripping away defenses to the carrier, higher valuation for liability, increased package limitation (or no package limitation at all), etc.
在《哈特法案》或 COGSA 作為法律適用的情況下，這兩項法規都不能被排除在外，從而為所需條款設定了底線。 然而，承運人肯定能夠為貨物利益提供比法規提供的更有利的合同條款，例如，剝奪對承運人的抗辯、更高的責任估值、增加包裹限制（或根本沒有包裹限制）等。
Similarly, to the extent either statute applies contractually, then the parties are free to negotiate terms as mutually agreed.
同樣，在任一法規在合同上適用的範圍內，雙方可以自由協商共同商定的條款。
Where a contractual law/jurisdiction clause elects US law, does the Harter Act or COGSA automatically apply?
如果合同法/管轄權條款選擇美國法律，則《哈特法案》或 COGSA 是否自動適用？
From a U.S. law perspective, a U.S. law/jurisdiction clause (referencing COGSA for example) which is properly drafted and broad enough to cover, inter alia, any and all disputes arising under the bill of lading or other applicable agreement should suffice to trigger COGSA (or the Harter Act) and its defenses and limitations.
從美國法律的角度來看，美國法律/管轄權條款（例如參考 COGSA）如果起草得當且足夠廣泛，足以涵蓋提單或其他適用協定下產生的任何和所有爭議，應足以觸發 COGSA（或哈特法案）及其抗辯和限制。
Conversely, a reference to US law alone may not be sufficient to incorporate COGSA (and/or the Harter Act) for periods that such laws do not otherwise apply statutorily. Certainly, however, there are many permutations resulting in possible differing results.
相反，僅引用美國法律可能不足以納入 COGSA（和/或《哈特法案》），因為這些法律在其他方面不適用。 然而，可以肯定的是，有許多排列會導致可能的不同結果。
As noted, carriers are certainly able to provide more favorable contractual terms to cargo interests than afforded by the statutes insofar as, for example, stripping away defenses to the carrier, higher valuation for liability, increased package limitation (or no package limitation at all), etc. Similarly, to the extent either statute applies contractually, then the parties are free to negotiate terms as mutually agreed.
如前所述，承運人肯定能夠為貨物利益提供比法規提供的更有利的合同條款，例如，剝奪對承運人的抗辯、更高的責任估值、增加包裹限制（或根本沒有包裹限制）等。 同樣，在合同中適用任何一項法規的範圍內，當事方可以自由協商共同商定的條款。
Are there obligations in the Harter Act or COGSA which are more onerous than in the Hague/Hague Visby Rules for the Carrier? If so, what aspects are more onerous?
《哈特法案》或《海牙維斯比規則》中是否有比《海牙/海牙維斯比規則》中對承運人更嚴格的義務？如果是這樣，哪些方面更繁重？
Generally stated, COGSA serves as the U.S. enactment of the Hague/Hague Visby Rules and the defenses applicable are essentially the same. One exception, of course, is that COGSA’s $500 per package limitation is more favorable than the applicable limit under the Hague-Visby Rules, which is the higher of 667.67 SDR per package or other shipping unit or 2 SDR per kilogram of gross weight.
一般來說，COGSA 是美國頒布的《海牙/海牙維斯比規則》，適用的抗辯基本相同。 當然，一個例外是，COGSA 的每個包裹 500 美元的限制比《海牙維斯比規則》下的適用限制更有利，後者是每個包裹或其他運輸單位 667.67 SDR 或每千克毛重 2 SDR（以較高者為準）。
Liability under the Harter Act, to the extent applicable, is generally more onerous than under COGSA or the Hague/Hague Visby Rules in that the carrier is liable for its own negligence and, as indicated above, that statute does not expressly provide for a limitation per package or by weight.
在適用範圍內，《哈特法案》規定的責任通常比 COGSA 或《海牙/海牙維斯比規則》規定的責任更嚴重，因為承運人要對自己的疏忽負責，並且如上所述，該法規沒有明確規定每個包裹或按重量的限制。
Do the Harter Act and COGSA apply to all contracts of carriage, or only to bills of lading and other negotiable documents? What is meant by “common carriage” and “private carriage” in the Acts?
《哈特法案》和 COGSA 是否適用於所有運輸合同，還是僅適用於提單和其他可轉讓檔？法案中的「公共運輸」和「私人運輸」是什麼意思？
As indicated above, COGSA supplants the Harter Act during the period “tackle to tackle.” As drafted, the Harter Act “only applies to public carriers;” however, “parties to private contracts are free to [incorporate the Harter Act by] contract and [are] not prevented by statute from limiting liability.”
如上所述，COGSA 在「鏟球到鏟球」期間取代了哈特法案。 根據草案，《哈特法案》“僅適用於公共運營商”，但是，“私人合同的各方可以自由地[通過]合同[納入哈特法案]，並且不受法規限制責任的約束。
Similarly, COGSA by its terms: (i) only applies to bills of lading and similar documents of title, meaning that COGSA is not applicable, for example, to non-negotiable bills (i.e. straight bills) and seaway bills; (ii) does not apply to charter parties or other private contracts of carriage, i.e., service contracts; and (3) does not apply to cargo stowed on deck. See 46 U.S.C. § 30701 note, § 1(b), (c) and 5.
同樣，COGSA 的條款：（i） 僅適用於提單和類似的擁有權檔，這意味著 COGSA 不適用於不可轉讓的提單（即直接提單）和海運單等;（ii） 不適用於租船合同或其他私人運輸合同，即服務合同;（3） 不適用於存放在甲板上的貨物。 參見 46 U.S.C. § 30701 註釋、§ 1（b）、（c） 和 5。
- Seaway bills and non-negotiable bills: Although COGSA does not apply statutorily to these types of bills because they are not documents of title, it is very common for the parties to incorporate COGSA contractually to both seaway bills and non-negotiable bills of lading.
海運提單和不可轉讓提單： 儘管 COGSA 不法定適用於這些類型的提單，因為它們不是擁有權檔，但雙方在合同上將 COGSA 納入海運提單和不可轉讓提單是很常見的。 - Charter Parties / Private Carriage: Common carriage is the transportation of cargo for the public under bills of lading. By contrast, private carriage is generally subject to a charter party, whether in part or for the full cargo carrying capacity of the vessel. In cases of private carriage, the parties may incorporate COGSA contractually through, for example, a US Clause Paramount. Likewise, while COGSA does not apply statutorily to service contracts, the parties are free to (and frequently do) incorporate COGSA contractually.
包船合同/私人運輸：普通運輸是根據提單為公眾運輸的貨物。 相比之下，私人運輸通常受租船合同的約束，無論是部分租船合同還是船舶的全部貨物運載能力。 在私人運輸的情況下，雙方可以通過合同方式將 COGSA 納入合同，例如，美國條款至高無上。同樣，雖然 COGSA 不法定地適用於服務合同，但雙方可以自由（並且經常）在合同中納入 COGSA。 - On Deck Cargo: Cargo defines the term goods to include “goods, wares, merchandise…except live animals and cargo which by the contract of carriage is stated as being carried on deck and is so carried,” thereby excluding cargo carried on deck from its coverage. 46 U.S.C. § 30702, note, § 1(c). However, the parties to a bill of lading may contractually extend COGSA to cover cargo stowed on deck and such clauses are enforceable to the extent the stowage does not expose the cargo to greater risk and/or is the custom and practice in the trade (e.g. on container ships).
On Deck Cargo：Cargo 將術語 goods 定義為包括「貨物、商品、商品......但運載合同規定為在甲板上運載且以這種方式運載的活體動物和貨物除外“，因此甲板上運載的貨物不在其承保範圍之內。 《美國法典》第 46 卷第 30702 條，註釋，第 1（c） 條。 但是，提單的各方可以通過合同將 COGSA 擴展到涵蓋存放在甲板上的貨物，並且此類條款在積載不會使貨物面臨更大風險和/或屬於貿易慣例的範圍內（例如在集裝箱船上）是可執行的。
If both the Harter Act and COGSA apply by force of law, will one automatically take precedence over the other? Is the position the same if they are both incorporated by virtue of a choice of law clause?
如果《哈特法案》和 COGSA 都依法適用，那麼一個會自動優先於另一個嗎？如果它們都是根據法律選擇條款成立的，情況是否相同？
COGSA supersedes the Harter Act with respect to the “tackle-to-tackle” period for international shipments, and thus the Harter Act applies by force of law only during the period prior to loading and after discharge of the cargo until proper delivery. As noted herein, COGSA can be contractually extended to the period before loading and after discharge and is generally enforceable on that basis.
COGSA 在國際貨物的「裝卸」期限方面取代了《哈特法案》，因此《哈特法案》僅在貨物裝貨前和卸貨后直至正確交付期間依法適用。 如本文所述，COGSA 可以通過合同延長至裝貨前和卸貨后，並且通常在此基礎上可執行。
However, there are some exceptions to this general statement in situations, for example, where COGSA would serve to exonerate the carrier from liability in a manner not permitted under the Harter Act.
但是，本一般聲明也有一些例外情況，例如，COGSA 會以《哈特法案》不允許的方式免除承運人的責任。
If you should have questions regarding anything covered herein, please reach out to your Service Team for assistance.
如果您對此處涵蓋的任何內容有任何疑問，請聯繫您的服務團隊尋求説明。
-----------------------------------
1We would like to extend great thanks to Michael Fernandez, Will Yost and Cody King of FHM who performed all of the underlying research and drafting of this article (https://www.freehill.com/; https://www.freehill.com/attorney/michael-fernandez; https://www.freehill.com/attorney/william-h-yost/)
1 我們要非常感謝 FHM 的 Michael Fernandez、Will Yost 和 Cody King，他們完成了本文的所有基礎研究和起草工作 （https://www.freehill.com/;https://www.freehill.com/attorney/michael-fernandez;https://www.freehill.com/attorney/william-h-yost/）
2Under the Club Rules, Members are not entitled to a recovery from the Association in respect of contractual liabilities which “would not have been incurred or sums which would not have been payable by the Owner if the cargo (including cargo on deck) had been carried under a contract incorporating terms no less favourable to the Owner than…the HVR…”. If COGSA and/or the Harter Act apply compulsorily by law, then associated liabilities would be covered.
阿拉伯數位根據本會規則，會員無權向協會追償「 如果貨物（包括甲板上的貨物）是根據合同運輸的，而合同條款對船東有利的條款不低於......HVR......”。 如果 COGSA 和/或 Harter 法案依法強制適用，則相關責任將得到承保。
