在航运实务中，提单的签发是重要的一环；很多合同约定，运费在正本提单签发释放后多少工作日内，租家才有责任义务安排支付运费。因此，作为执行程租航次的船东/二船东而言，肯定希望在装完货后尽快签出提单，以便收取运费。然而提单签发涉及到很多风险和责任问题，代理所呈交（As presented）的提单船长该不该签？需要注意哪些问题呢？现在以某F轮实例来说说这方面的问题。
F轮以NYPE租约格式租给租家，去执行租家安排的从德国Rostock装小麦到伊朗卸的航次任务。鉴于可能存在的风险，在装货前，找租家代理要了提单草稿，如下：
如之前提到的，期租合同下，船长本来没有义务在提单上添加批注，租家的代理给了什么样的提单，只要和大副收据一致，就可以签。但是大副收据仅仅在装完货之后才有，而且船长可能对租约的条款并不了解或对航运商务知识风险也并没有那么敏感，因此作为一个严谨的船东，不管是期租合同，还是自己执行程租合同，都有必要让代理在完货前先把提单草稿发过来先核对，以避免给船东自己造成不必要的风险。
该提单是标准的金康格式的提单，卸港那里的描述如下：
BIK, BANDAR ABBAS (PERSIAN GULF),IRAN/ OR ANY OTHER SOUTHERN PORT OFIRAN- / TO BE TRANSITED TO PAYAM SPECIALECONOMIC ZONE- KARAJ
但参租约条款如下：
- FOR 1 TCT, ALWAYS TRADING VIA SPS, SBS, SAS, ALWAYSAFLOAT
ALWAYS W/IN IWL VIA BALTIC INT. ROSTOCKTOIRAN WITH LAWFUL/HARMLESS GRAIN, AND CARGO WILL BE LOADED AS PER IMSBC CODEREQUIREMENTS,
很显然与租约不符，租约只说到伊朗的安全港口，但提单草稿卸港的描述涉及到多式联运的，船东的责任风险加大，而且也没加上安全港口，于是要求租家及代理修改卸港描述。在该轮完货后，和租家交涉，最终租家及代理同意修改，最终的大副收据如下：
卸港改为了：1SP IRAN or 1SP UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,并加上了 SAID TO WEIGH SHIPPER’SWEIGHT,QUALITY AND QUANTITY UNKNOWN。
通常在期租合同下，如NYPE租约所描述的As presented一样，租家所呈交的提单，不管是什么样式，船东和船长不得拒签。F轮的提单最终因为不符合贸易方面的要求，租家又要求把卸港改为最初提供的那样。但这个时候，如果租家再要求修改，那么将与大副收据不一致，船东有权利拒绝签发任何与大副收据不一致的提单。
如果非得签与大副收据不一致的提单，那么没有办法，租家只能提供保函。在租家提供了如下保函后，最终同意签发与大副收据，卸港不一致的提单，并在SOUTHERN PORT OF IRAN加入了SAFE，变为SOUTHERN SAFE PORT OF IRAN。
The above cargo was shipped on the above ship on 19th/February 2016 ,The dischargingport stated on the Mate’s Receipt is/are 1SP IRAN OR 1 SP UNITED ARAB EMIRATES,but we, [省略]…., hereby request you toissue bill of lading with the discharging port being BIK, BANDAR ABBAS
(PERSIAN GULF),IRAN- OR ANY OTHER SOUTHERN SAFE PORTOFIRAN- / TO BE TRANSITEDTO PAYAM SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE- KARAJ.And we, HIGHSEAS ENTERPRISES LTD, hereby confirm and guarantee that the port issafe for the vessel.
The carrying vessel / her master or owners will not beresponsible for any risk / damage /expenses / liability that might be sustainedas a result of satisfying the charterers to issue bill of lading with the proposedwording of describing the discharge port in the bill of lading.
We, [省略].., further confirm willhold whole responsible for any risk and expenses for the land transportation byourselves.
In consideration of your complying with our aboverequest, we hereby agree as follows:-
1. To indemnify you, your servants and agents and tohold all of you harmless in respect of any liability, loss, damage or expenseof whatsoever nature which you may sustain by reason of issuing the bill oflading as aforesaid.
2. In the event of any proceedings being commencedagainst you or any of your servants or agents in connection with issuing thebill of lading as aforesaid, to provide you or them on demand with sufficientfunds to defend the same.
3. If, in connection with issuing the bill of ladingas aforesaid, the ship, or any other ship or property in the same or associatedownership, management or control, should be arrested or detained or should thearrest or detention thereof be threatened, or should there be any interferencein the use or trading of the vessel (whether by virtue of a caveat beingentered on the ship’s registry or otherwise howsoever), to provide on demandsuch bail or other security as may be required to prevent such arrest ordetention or to secure the release of such ship or property or to remove suchinterference and to indemnify you in respect of any liability, loss, damage orexpense caused by such arrest or detention or threatened arrest or detention orsuch interference, whether or not such arrest or detention or threatened arrestor detention or such interference may be justified.
4. The liability of each and every person under thisindemnity shall be joint and several and shall not be conditional upon yourproceeding first against any person, whether or not such person is party to orliable under this indemnity.
5. This indemnity shall be governed by and construedin accordance with English law and each and every person liable under thisindemnity shall at your request submit to the jurisdiction of the High Court ofJustice ofEngland.
其实保函的内容可以人为修改，而不一定严格按照保赔协会给的标准格式。只要双方都认可，额外加入的也都有效力，如本份保函。
F轮从德国装货到伊朗卸的航次，最终的提单如下。
船东为什么要费劲要求租家去修改呢？第一，避免船东在提单下，未知的责任风险，因此需要修改卸港描述。虽然最终同意租家要求，但加入了Safe，租家也提供了保函，因此船东受到了保护。第二，在提单上加入了SAID TO WEIGH SHIPPER’SWEIGHT,QUALITY AND QUANTITY UNKNOWN，这样一来，如果在卸港有任何货量，短货方面的问题，租家或收货人将找不到船东头上来，因为船东对于已装船的货物在数量和质量上都不保证，一切都是未知的。
接下来谈谈签发提单所涉及的几个常见的问题。
一、船东是否有权利要求租家修改提单上卸港的描述？
参Halcyon Steamship v. ContinentalGrain 案中，MacKinnon勋爵的如下说法，卸港超出了租约规定的范围，船东有权利拒绝签发。
The limits of trading… are Institute Warranty limits, not north of Holland. If the charterers shipped a cargo inAmericaand then tenderedbills of lading to the captain under which he was to deliver to Copenhagen or Danzig, ofcourse he would rightly refuse to sign…
及《Time Charter》-Chapter 21-Signing of Bills of Lading:
21.42 Themaster has the right to refuse to sign a bill of lading which names a port ofdischarge outside the charter trading limits.
也就是说，船长有权拒绝卸货港在航行区域范围外的提单。
实务中，也经常见到卸港描述为： Any Chineseports 或者 Main Chinese ports. 这两者，其实是有风险的，尤其是对于大的船舶而言，国内港口众多，有很多港口进不去，那么如果船东签发了此类的提单，那么在提单责任下，船东将面临着不得不去的尴尬境地。因此，如果租约中有约定港口或航行区域必须是安全的，那么可以要求租家将这里的卸港描述修改为： Any Chinese safe ports或者 Main Chinese safe ports.加上safe的好处是，如果因为港口限制，船舶进不去，则港口不安全，在提单责任下船东就有权利不去。同时，在租约下，租家也违反了港口安全保证，船东有权利以港口不安全为由不去，要求租家更改卸港。
当然了，如果租家非得要求船长这么签，虽然这些可能是租约所不允许的，或者在实践中也不可行，而且船长也去签发了，从而导致船东之后无法拒绝租家要求，因为在提单责任下船东必须完成到指定卸货港交付货物的义务。但是如果因为租家违反了租约许可的贸易区域限制，给船东造成了损失或损害，通常情况下，船东有权利找租家请求损害赔偿。
这里与租约不符的，也可参Kruger v Moel Tryvan 案，在这个案中，Halsbury勋爵说，他并不认同说船长必须签署任何提交给他的提单，如果所提交的提单与租约明显不符，拒绝签署是船长的责任。
When itis said that the master must sign any bill of lading submitted to him, I cannotagree. If the bill of lading tendered is manifestly inconsistent with thecharterparty, I think it would be his duty to refuse.
对此也可以参《Time Charter》21.39:
It has been said that a master is not obliged to sign bills oflading which contain “extraordinary” terms or terms which are “manifestlyinconsistent” with the charter.
也就是说，船长没有义务去签那种包含不寻常条款或那些条款与合同明显不符的提单。
二、船东/船长是否有权利拒绝签发运费预付提单 “Freight Prepaid B/L”？
在The “Nanfri”案中，租约以Baltimore格式，因为租家在租金支付方面有问题，于是船东指示他们租给租家的三条船的船长，撤回给代理的授权书，不允许代理代表船长签发提单；拒绝签发租家的运费预付提单；要求提单并入留置权条款。上诉院Wilberforce勋爵认为，租约为期租合同，其性质和目的是为了使租家在租期内可以自由使用支配船舶，签发某一种特定形式的提单对于租家的贸易来可能是至关重要的，如果运费预付提单对于贸易而言是至关重要的话，那么租家有权利签发。期租合同强调了租家的权利，在使用船舶的时候，决定什么样的提单才适合他们的贸易需求，可以指示船长去签发这样的提单；而船东也受到此赔偿条款的保护。
The present charters are time charters, the nature andpurpose of which is to enable the charterers to use the ships during the periodof the charters for trading in whatever manner they think fit. The issue ofbills of lading in a particular form may be vital for the charterers’ trade,and indeed in relation to this trade, which involves c.i.f. or c. & f.contracts, the issue of freight pre-paid bills of lading is essential if thetrade is to be maintained. Furthermore, cl. 9, as is usual in time charters,contains an indemnity clause against all consequences or liabilities arisingfrom the master signing bills of lading. This underlines the power of thecharterers, in the course of exploiting the ship,
to issue such bills, the owners being protected by theindemnity clause.
船东不服继续上诉，在贵族院，Kerr勋爵维持Wilberforce勋爵的判决，判决租家有权利签发运费预付提单，留置权条款只是给予船东一个留置分运费的权利，而这与运费预付提单并没有什么不一致。
Under the employmment clause in thecharter(clause 9) the charterers could require the masters to sign “ freightprepaid” bills without any mention of the terms of the time charterers; thelien clause gave the owners a lien only upon such freights or sub-freights as,in the event, come to be payable, and which in fact are payable, under anysub-charter or bill of lading, freight pre-paid bills of lading were not inconsistentwith that.
当然如果碰到不可靠期租租家，有可能在签了运费预付提单，租家收了运费，卷钱关门跑路了，这个时候期租租约受挫合同被迫终止，但船东在提单责任下，还得把货运到卸货港，而此时所有运输成本船东只能自己承担。因此，再洽谈租约的时候，有必要对租家进行初步的调查，其背景或财务状况。但如果租约签订了，除非有相反规定，要不租金都用权利签发运费预付提单，而无需请求船东同意。如果船东无故拒绝或要求租家提供保函才能同意签发运费预付提单，则船东可能面临违约及被索赔的风险。
如果船东担心租家有跑路的风险，那么就得在租约里先约定好租家无权签发运费预付提单。
三、如果提单与大副收据不一致，那么船长是否有权拒签？
很显然，船长有权拒签。如NYPE46第8条描述如下，最后一行已经清楚写明要与大副或理货员收据一致。
That the Captain shall prosecute hisvoyages with the utmost despatch, and shall render all customary assistance with ship's crew and 77 boats. The Captain (although appointed by the Owners),shall be under the orders and directions of the Charterers as regardsemployment and 78 agency; and Charterers are to load, stow, and trim the cargo at their expenseunder the supervision of the Captain, who is to sign Bills of Lading for 79cargo as presented, in conformity with Mate's or TallyClerk's receipts.
也可参The “Ocean Dove”案，法庭就判如果提单与大副收据不一致，那么即使不一致的地方很小，船长拒绝签发也没有什么不合理的，租家停租索赔被拒。
In The Ocean Dove, the panelheld that it was not unreasonable for the master to refuse to sign bills oflading which were inconsistent with mate’s receipts, even though the inconsistencieswere small. Therefore, the charterer’s claim for off-hire during the period ofdelay was denied.
如果船长已经授权给租家代理去代表自己签发提单，那么如果代理签发了与大副收据不一致的提单，那么租家违约，需要赔偿船东损失如果有的话，如The “Tulsa”案。
In The Tulsa,the panel held the charterer responsible for improperly stowed and lashed cargowhich washed overboard. The charterer was required to indemnify the owner forall cargo claims because it breached the charter by issuing clean bills oflading which were not in conformity with mate’s receipts.
在之前说过的The “Arctic Trader” 案中，Evans勋爵认为，船长或大副，当他被要求签发大副收据的时候，对他的雇主，船东，有义务如实地记录表明状况，如果他不这么做，他就违反了他的雇佣合同。同样，由于大副收据将或可作为提单的基础，而提单将在第三方手中产生单独的合同，他也可能对第三方负有同样的义务。已经建立了现成的法律，任何在提单上的表述都可能对提单的第三方引起侵权；在这个意义上也可以说，他有一个实际的或潜在的义务（基于大副收据是签发提单的基础，通常是这样）不要在上面做不准确的陈述。
In The Arctic Trader[1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 449 atpage 458. Earlier in his judgment Evans, L.J., explained that: “… the master orchief officer, when he is asked for signed mate’s receipts,isunder a duty to his employer, the shipowner, to record the apparent conditionaccurately, so that if he fails to do so he is in breach of that term of hisemployment. Similarly, since the mate’s receipt will ormay be used as the basis for the bill of lading, which will give rise to aseparate contract in the hands of third parties, he may perhaps also owe asimilar duty to those third parties. It is establishedlaw that any representation which is made in the bill of lading can give riseto claims in tort as well as under the bill of lading by third parties, and soin this sense also it may be said that he is under an actual or potential duty(depending on whether the mate’s receipt is the basis on which the bill oflading is issued, as it usually is) not to make an inaccurate statement in it.
因此，如果提单不能如实地表述货物实际的状况，船长就不能签发货物表面秩序和状况良好的提单。
The master has the right, and the duty, not to sign bills which acknowledge thereceipt in apparent good order and condition of cargo which is not in apparentgood order and condition. This duty is generally a duty towards his owners andtransferees for value of the bills of lading: it is not normally a contractualduty owed to the charterers.
如果货物状况明显有问题，比如粮食霉变或碳化，卷钢或电缆生锈或氧化严重等等，这类用肉眼可以很清楚地看出来货物有问题的，则船长必须如实地在大副收据和提单上添加批注。如果船长未这么做，签发了清洁提单，导致被无辜的第三方索赔，则船东得自己承担。当然如果肉眼看不出，比如粮食的含水量百分比，煤炭的品级等等，这种情况下，并不需要船长有专家级别的知识水平，如果船方因此而签发了清洁大副收据或提单，船东无需负责。
实务中不一致最常见的就是案方数据与船方的水尺数不一致，因此船长大副务必在大副收据上做好适当必要的批注。如果船长在明知道货量有差异的情况下，仍然按照岸方的数据签发了清洁提单而不作任何批注，和明知货物状况有问题仍然签发清洁提单一样，结果将导致船东违约，不可避免地被索赔。
类似的还有，如果装了甲板货，但提单未提及甲板货的问题，则船长有权利拒签。
四、SHIPPED已装船那栏里已经有了weight, measures,marks, numbers, quality, contents, and value unknown，是否还有必要在提单里再加上SAID TO WEIGH, WEIGHT、QUALITY AND QUANTITY UNKNOWN呢？
在1998年的The“Mata K”案中，商业法庭的Clarke法官（现在已经是最高法院的大法官勋爵了）判提单中的SHIPPED已装船一栏有这一描述，重量，体积，质量，数量，状况，内容和价值未知，因此船东对已装船的货物不必负责，对于提单是否表明装运了11,000吨钾肥，给出了不是的答案。
If the question “did the bill of ladingrepresent that 11,000 tonnes ofpotash were shipped?” was to be answered on the construction ofthe bill of lading as it stood, the answer was No; a bill of lading whichstated that 11,000 tonnes of cargo were shipped “ quantity unknown” was bit arepresentation that 11,000 tonnes were shipped; and any other conclusion wouldgive no meaning to the expression “ quantity…unknown”.
这样的判决的结果是，船东无需为可能存在的短货索赔负责。
当然通常情况下，因为涉及到信用证结汇的问题，发货人一般不同意在提单上加上said to be 或said toweigh或weight unknown此类的批注；一旦加上了船东就对装船的货量不再负责。
如在The“New Chinese Antimony”案中，法官说道，如果在提单对货物的总量或数量作了重量或数量未知的批注，那么提单对于船东而言就不是该总量或数量已装船的初步证据，相反货主有责任去证明事实上该总量或数量的货物已经装船了，责任落在发货人货主的身上。
Where the statement of the amount orquantity of the goods in the bill of lading is qualified by such words as “weightor quantity unknown,” the bill of lading is not even prima facie evidenceagainst the shipowner of the amount or quantity shipped, and the onus is on the cargo owners of provingwhat in fact was shipped.
但另一方面，鉴于2012年高等法院的Simon法官在The “Saga Explorer”案中判决，虽然提单SHIPPED已装船一栏的描述有weight, measures, marks,numbers, quality, contents, and value unknown，并却未能够给船东抗辩；因此非常有必要在提单里再加上此类批注，这样一来就避免了不可预见性的判决。
五、对于签发与大副收据不一致的提单，租家提供保函是否有法律效力？
F轮中，租家要求修改卸港描述而提供保函，而不是要求对货物的外观状况，或数量作修改。增加了卸港的范围，只是增加了船东的责任风险，对于收货人而言并没有不利影响。
然而在另一方面，如果船东在明知货物的状况或数量有问题的情况下，接受租家或发货人的保函而同意签发清洁提单，那么在这种情况下，就涉及到欺诈侵权，其保函将不被接受，没有任何法律效力。
在Brown Jenkinson v Percy Dalton 案中，Morris勋爵作了如下陈词：
At the request of the defendants, the plaintiffs madea representation which they knew to be false and which they intended should berelied upon by persons who received the bill of lading, including any bankerwho might be concerned. In these circumstances, all the elements of the tort ofdeceit were present. Someone who could prove that he suffered damage by relyingon the representation could sue for damages. I feel impelled to the conclusionthat a promise to indemnify the plaintiffs against any loss resulting to themfrom making the representation is unenforceable. The claim cannot be putforward without basing it upon an unlawful transaction. The promise upon whichthe plaintiffs rely is in effect this: if you will make a false representation,which will deceive indorsees or bankers, we will indemnify you against any lossthat may result to you. I cannot think that a court should lend its aid toenforce such a bargain.
作为一个英国法律的问题，如果当事人提供保函的目的是为了误报已装船货物的状况或数量的话，那么该保函将没有法律效力。这也是保赔协会对于这类保函不保的主要原因。
As a matter of English law,letter of indemnity are generally unenforceable against the party providing theindemnity where that indemnity is to cover intentional misdescription as thecondition or quantity of cargo loaded.
这类涉及到欺诈侵权的问题，将另文再述。
六、提单日期不对，船长是否有权拒签？
提单不可以倒签，这是基本常识。如果船长注意到提单日期不对，船长有权拒签；但如果船长注意到不对了还是选择签发了，可能会导致船东丧失索赔权。如在The “Almak”案中，Mustill法官说的如下：
A master would not be bound to sign a bill of ladingbearing an incorrect date, He would always be entitled to refuse if he noticedthe discrepancy. If he did notice it and nevertheless chose to sign, it mightbe that the shipowner would lost his right of indemnity.
总结：
结合F轮实际的情况，不管是程租还是期租，作为原船东都得要求船长，在现场把好第一关，如果一旦货物有问题，立即要求停止装货。由于合理怀疑货物有问题而造成的时间损失，在之前的文章已经说过，程租下Laytime正常计算，期租下租家不可以停租。
在装完货后，尽管在期租下船长没有义务，但为了避免麻烦，在货物状况有问题，数量有争议的情况下，代理呈交的大副收据却是清洁的，那么船长最好尽合理义务，提醒期租租家，是否可以签。如果期租租家要求必须签清洁提单的话，必须在收到租家明确的书面指示，然后才可以签发。因为这样一来，至少还有个默示索赔的权利保护船东。当然，如果货物状况极其异常，数量差异巨大的情况下，还是要如实添加批注，拒绝接受任何形式的保函，避免船东自己构成侵权欺诈。如The “Saga Explorer”，船东明知货物有问题，却同意接受发货人保函以签发清洁提单，最终在卸港被收货人索赔，Simon法官判船东的这种行为构成了欺诈侵权。
总之，在提单签发上，如果是船东提单，那么船东必须得为自己的行为负责，这就是船东在提单下的责任。提单和租约是两个不同的问题，收货人可以凭提单直接找船东索赔损失，但如果船东想寻求赔偿，只能依靠租约找租家。
