vis-à-vis the holders of bills of lading, so the clause creates a contractual ?estoppel‘ vis-à-vis the charterers.”。
6 整体解释合约之四：假定双方不会约定多余的内容
这方面先可去节录S.A. Maritime et Commerciale of Greneva v. Anglo-Iranian Oil Co Ltd (1954) 1 W.L.R. 492中Somervell大法官所说的：
“Although one finds surplusage in contracts, deeds and Acts of Parliament, one learns towards treating words as adding something, rather than as mere surplusage.”（虽然会在一份合约中找到多余的内容，但应该是倾向去看待这些文字是为了去增加内容，而不是多余）。
这一个说法是与本章的大精神相配合，即尽量不要去漠视/忽视订约双方写在一个合约内的条文/文字。在本书另章会介绍解释合约的“同类规则”（ejusdem generis），在此可去一提是现在介绍的这个假设也是“同类规则”存在的原因之一。简单说来，所谓“同类规则”，就是双方在特别列明了一些通常是免责的个别事项后，在其后加上一句看来很广泛的条文说明“包括一切其他情况”( any other causes)。但如果对此广泛的用字以其字面意思来解释，前面的特别去列明的事项就会成为多余，因为没有理由它们不被最后的一句包括在内。所以有这个双方不会约定多余内容的假设，就要给此广泛的条文加以局限，变得在前面列明的事项并非是多余，就假设它只包括与列明事项同类型的其他事项。
6.1 不同意这一个假设的说法
但有不少说法是这一个假设对解释合约其实是没有什么帮助，例如在Tea Trade Properties Ltd v. CIN Properties Ltd (1990) 1 E.G.L.R. 155，Hoffmann大法官说： “I have never found the presumption against superfluous language particularly useful in the construction of leases. The draftsmen traditionally employ linguistic overkill and try to obliterate the conceptual target by using a number of phrases expressing more or less the same idea.”。
另可见在Total Transport Corp v. Arcadia Petroleum Ltd (1998) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 351，Staughton大法官这样说：
“It is well-established that the presumption against surplusage is of little value in the interpretation of commercial contracts.”。
还有在Beaufort Development (N.I) Ltd v. Gilbert-Ash (N.I.) Ltd (1999) 1 A.C. 266，Hoffmann勋爵又说：
“This is the argument from redundancy; the parties are presumed not to say anything unnecessarily and unless the decisions of the architect were binding, there would be no need to confer upon the arbitrator an express power open up, review and revise them.
I think, my Lords, that the argument from redundancy is seldom an entirely secure one. The fact is that even in legal documents (or, some might say, especially in legal documents) people often use superfluous words. Sometimes the draftsmanship is clumsy; more often the cause is a lawyer‘s desire to be certain that every conceivable point has been covered. One has only to read the covenants in a traditional lease to realise that draftsmen lack inhibition about using too many words. I have no wish to add to the anthology of adverse comments on the drafting of the J.C.T. Standard Form Contract. In the case of a contract which has been periodically renegotiated, amended and added to over many years, it is unreasonable to expect that there will be no redundancies or loose ends.”。
6.2 什么是多余内容
首先解释一下什么是多余内容，这可以从大家日常的讲话之中就可以觉察到经常在讲废话或多余的话。例如在餐馆见到朋友，就会问：“吃饭吗？”。在渡轮见到朋友，也经常有一句口头禅互相问候说：“过海啊？”。
在不少有法律效果的合约，都出现有多余内容，甚至是大量存在。即使是有律师或专业人士去拟定，也会出现这种情况，更不用说是差劲的人士所拟定。多余内容可以是多方面的，例如在同一份合约内针对某一件事讲了又讲，去重复。另一种经常出现的是法律已经有了明确默示，但再以明示条文去重复这一个默示地位（不是去否定）。简单的例子可以是去以明示条文说明双方订约方要为他们的疏忽负责，这就是多此一举了。笔者也见过不少大型合资合约，由高水平律师协助草拟，其中约定去香港仲裁，就去把香港仲裁条例一大半的内容以明示的形式搬进此仲裁条文，导致该条文长达好几页。这看来又是多此一举。 至于合约内为什么有这么多的多余内容，除了一个相当重要的原因是订约方不懂外，也可去节录Staughton大法官在The ―Eurus‖ (1998) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 351所说如下：
“There is, as it seems to me, a long history of charterparty clauses dealing with the liability of one party or the other for what would without the clause in question still be a breach of contract. To the lawyer this is surplusage; but to commercial men it is a way of making sure that there has been no mistake or misunderstanding, and to emphasize their rights and liabilities.”。
6.2.1 例子之一：
这里可去先举一条多余内容的著名条文，就是在1876年版本金康租约中已经出现的一条文如下：“Indemnity for non-performance of this charterparty, proved damages, not exceeding estimate amount of freight.”。但这一条文一直不被英国法律承认，当作是多余，所以不会去给与解释，例如让船东或承租人去在毁约的时候只限制在估计的运费。理由在《Scrutton on Charterparty》一书第20版有解释如下：
“In many charters there appears a clause in some such terms as ?Penalty for non-performance of this agreement estimated amount of freight.‘ Such a clause is inoperative, and is neglected by the court. … In past editions of this work, it had been said to be ?a mystery why this clause survives, except upon the supposition that chartering brokers regard it as a piece of sacred ritual‘ ”。
另在《Cooke & Others on Voyage Charters》一书1876年版也有提到该条文为什么是多余，这是因为在违约的时候，受害方可以索赔损失，而损失也往往是唯一的救济，而赔偿的基本原则就是复原，说法如下：
“The remedy to which the innocent party most commonly resorts in the event of a breach of the charter is a claim for damages, and this is frequently the only remedy available. The basic principle which lies behind an award of damages is indemnity or restitutio in integrum …”。
6.2.2 例子之二：
在Baltime与金康租约的免责条文中也有多余的内容，在Royal Greek Government v. Minister of Transport (1949) 83 Lloyd‘s Rep. 228有提到。多余的部分如下：
“The charterer to be responsible for loss or damage caused to the vessel or to the owners by goods being loaded contrary to the terms of the charter or by improper or careless bunkering or loading, stowing or discharging of goods or any other improper or negligent act on their part or that of their servants.”。
针对这一部分（是第13条文的第二部分），Devlin大法官说是多余，如下：
“the second part of Clause 13 is, from a lawyer‘s point of view, superfluous. All that it is saying legally is that the charterer is responsible for breach of the charter-party or for negligence.”。
Devlin大法官也说到是“商业人士订约是不关心重复”（I doubt that the commercial draftsmen pay much attention to overlapping or that they are afraid of repetition）。
6.2.3 例子之三：
在The ―Eurus‖ (1998) 1 Lloyd‘s Rep. 351先例，提到了一条著名的Scanport clause中只有
第一句是有用的，剩下的第二与第三句是多余的内容。该条文是用在油轮租约去允许承租人在航次半途更改卸港，即使已经有卸港明确在已经签发的提单中注明。该条文是如下：
“Discharge port shown in Bill of Lading not to constitute a declaration of discharge port and Charterers to have right to order vessel to any port within terms of the Charter Party. Charterers hereby indemnity Owners against claims brought by holders of Bill of Lading against Owners by reason of destination.”。
6.2.4 例子之四：
也是在The ―Eurus‖这同一个先例，它涉及了一个油轮航次租约，案情是涉及了该油轮去尼日利亚装原油，承租人要求船长不要在1992年1月31日之1100时之前递交准备就绪通知书，因为承租人在1月23日已经知道2月份的原油价格比1月份低，而石油买卖价格的结算是根据提单日期。承租人希望稍后去递交通知书，船舶就会在2月1日才装完原油，能够签发2月份的提单。但船舶在1月31日之0030时抵达就马上靠泊，并在0636时开始装货。之后承租人想办法通过船长把装货速度减慢，总算到了2月1日0130时才装完货。但船东与船长都不知道的是尼日利亚有一个习惯做法是要到了0800时之后装完货才能出该天的提单。所以，承租人结果还是出不了2月份的提单，导致了差价损失约70万美元。承租人于是向船东索赔这笔损失，而其中双方的一个争议是这一个习惯做法所带来的损失是否遥远的问题。
这里带出了两个可能不同的损失计算：（一）是通常的违约下索赔损失，普通法是要求损失能够在订约时合理预见与不遥远：Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Ex. 341；Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd., (C.A.) [1949] 2 K.B. 528。（二）是如果根据合约内的补偿条文（indemnity clause），则可能是不必去理会损失能否合理预见或是否遥远，只需去理会是否补偿条文所针对的事情与该事情发生所导致的损失有否使因果关系被打断。这一点会在本书另章介绍“补偿”一词的解释时另去详论，在此只去节录Gerard McMeel教授的《The Construction of Contracts—Interpretation, Implication and Rectification》一书之20.57段所说，如下：
“It is a surprisingly difficult question whether a claim under an indemnity gives rise to a right to claim in debt or to claim damages. This exercise in categorization is often thought to be the solution to the issues of whether or not the doctrines of mitigation and remoteness of damage are applicable to claims for an indemnity. It is suggested that there is no necessary link between this conceptual question and the practical question concerning whether those limitations on recovery are applicable. The characterization of an indemnity is the subject of a serious conflict of appellate authority.”。
可以想到是抗辩索赔的船东会是希望以第一种方法来计算损失，因为尼日利亚的习惯做
法应该是不能合理预见与遥远。而承租人希望是以第二种方法，因为有机会（因为没有明确的先例支持这一点）去争议从指示船长稍后去递交通知书与后来的提早装完货导致损失之间因果关系没有被打断。
这里就涉及了租约的有关第36条文如下：
“36. 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.”。
船东指这一条文为“责任与赔偿条文”，而并非是补偿条文。毕竟，它不像其他的补偿条文通常会有“补偿”（indemnify）一字。但承租人认为这是一条补偿条文，而“补偿”一字并不重要，即使是有也会套用在一般的违约赔偿损失。这里还涉及了本章的争议，就是如果第36条文只针对一般的违约损失赔偿，就是多余，因为普通法的地位就已经明确是这样。所以要去给该条文一定的解释，就不能去漠视/忽视，而这个解释就是把它当作是一条补偿条文。
在仲裁，多数的裁决是判船长没有去依从承租人的命令，但根据违约索赔，是损失不可预见与遥远，所以承租人在这一方面败诉。但承租人根据补偿条文却是成功。这导致败诉的船东上诉，并在高院与上诉庭胜诉。
简单地说，上诉庭认为第36条文如果是被解释为补偿条文，有一点说不通。因为去整体解释程租合约，就难以理解双方为什么在各种各样的违约中只去针对依从承租人航次指示这一方面去要求补偿，进而避开损失会不可预见与遥远的困难？这可见Staughton大法官所说的：
“…as to the purpose of the clause there was no reason, why the parties should have wished to provide that, for some breaches of contract by the owners the charterers‘ loss would be recoverable whether or not it was within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, while for all other breaches the ordinary rule, as to the intention so to provide.”。
这里笔者也可以进一步解释是补偿条文经常是在期租合约出现，但在程租合约内就少见。在期租合约有必要是因为船东允许承租人有营运的自由（例如去世界各地不同的港口与装运不同的货物，签发各式各样的提单，等等），而交换的是承租人要去明示或默示补偿这些营运自由所带来的船东损失。在许多情况下，补偿所针对的事情不一定是与违约有关。由于程租合约是没有这种营运的自由，所以不需要补偿。上述的36条文针对的是船东没有依照承租人的航次指示，而条文也说明了这些指示必须是依照租约规定与商业习惯。这表示了船东没有依照航次指示也相等于没有依照租约规定，这正是一个普通法下的违约，本来就不必以明示条文去说明。