B: you see, Mr Smith, the situation would be somewhat different if you
had put in your letter of credit the words all risks instead
of all marine risks. Under an all risks cover,
loss by breakage would have been recoverable, because, though by the word
risksis meant that any loss occurring must be due to some fortuitous
happening and through external cause, when a loss does arise in transit
it will be often rather difficult to distinguish between accidental and
ordinary loss, especially as far as breakage or leakage is concerned, In such
cases,ordinary loss will quite possibly be included in a claim and met by the
insurer.
白：史密斯先生，你知道，如果你在信用證上注明一切險而不是一切
海洋運輸貨物險，情況就有所不同了。按一切險投保，破碎損失就能得
到賠償，因為雖然這個險字是指：必須由于某些偶然事故與外部原因所造成的損
失，但當(dāng)貨物在運輸途中發(fā)生損失時，常常很難區(qū)分是意外的或是普通的損失，
特別是有關(guān)破碎或滲漏。在這種情況下，普通損失很可能就包括在索賠之列而得
到承保方的理賠。
S: Then all marine risksmeans less than all risks?
B: The English understand by Marine risksonly risks incident
to transport by sea, such as collision, standing, fire, penetration of
sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under the
all marine risks,losses recoverable will only be confined
to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents, whereas
the all riskscover will admit all losses occurring at any
time throughout the whole currency of the cover, irrespective of whether
they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense,all
marine risksprovides a more limited cover than all risks.
In insurance parlance, the termall marine risksis liable to
be misinterpreted and its use should be avoided in letters of credit.
Now let us turn to loses through inherent vice or nature of the
subject matter insured,such as deterioration of food, leakage of
liquid and breakage of glass or ceramics. These are not considered marine
risks. Risks of this kind must be specifically applied for and explicitly
accepted by the insurer.
史：那么一切海洋運輸貨物險是否意味著比一切險范圍狹一些呢？
白：英國人對海洋運輸貨物險只理解為海運中的意外風(fēng)險，諸如船舶碰撞，擱淺，
起火，海水進(jìn)入船艙等。換句話說，以一切海洋運輸貨物險投保，其損失的
賠償只限于因海上災(zāi)難和海運意外事故所引起的損失，而保一切險，在整個承保期
內(nèi)的任何時間，不論在海上或陸上所產(chǎn)生的意外事故，其全部損失都予以賠償。在這個
含義上一切海洋運輸貨物險比一切險所承保的責(zé)任范圍更為有限。按保險的說法，
一切海洋運輸貨物險條款容易被誤解，應(yīng)避免在信用證中使用?，F(xiàn)在我來談?wù)勔?/font>
貨物內(nèi)在缺陷或特性，諸如：由于物品變質(zhì)，液體滲漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的損
失。這些都不認(rèn)為是海洋運輸貨物險。這類特殊險別必須特別投保并須得到承保方明確接受。
S: That seems clear enough, now that you have explained it. but what
I don't understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A.cover. I thought
that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks whilst, according
to what you say, this W.P.A. cover means very little. It seems to be a
phrase without much substance. Just what is the difference between W.P.A.
and F.P.A.?
B: Your question is very much to the point, Mr Smith. It is a very common
but mistaken idea that a merchant has done every common but mistaken idea
that a merchant has hone everything that is required to protect himself
against losses when he has taken out a W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps,
no mistake more detrimental to his interests.
史：現(xiàn)在經(jīng)你這樣解釋，似乎夠清楚了。不過現(xiàn)在我不明白的是，保水漬險有什
么好處。我想水漬險應(yīng)包括全部主要風(fēng)險，而根據(jù)你所說的，這種水漬險所承保
責(zé)任卻最很少。徒有其名而沒有很多內(nèi)容。那么水漬險和平安險有
什么區(qū)別呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的問題提到點子上來了。這是個很普遍，但是個錯誤的想法，那就是
商人投保了水漬險便以為足以保障各種損失。恐怕沒有別的錯誤比這更為有害于他們自
己的利益。
B: you see, Mr Smith, the situation would be somewhat different if you
had put in your letter of credit the words all risks instead
of all marine risks. Under an all risks cover,
loss by breakage would have been recoverable, because, though by the word
risksis meant that any loss occurring must be due to some fortuitous
happening and through external cause, when a loss does arise in transit it will
be often rather difficult to distinguish between accidental and ordinary
loss, especially as far as breakage or leakage is concerned, In such cases,
ordinary loss will quite possibly be included in a claim and met by the
insurer.
白：史密斯先生，你知道，如果你在信用證上注明一切險而不是一切海
洋運輸貨物險，情況就有所不同了。按一切險投保，破碎損失就能得到賠
償，因為雖然這個險字是指：必須由于某些偶然事故與外部原因所造成的損失，但
當(dāng)貨物在運輸途中發(fā)生損失時，常常很難區(qū)分是意外的或是普通的損失，特別是有關(guān)破碎
或滲漏。在這種情況下，普通損失很可能就包括在索賠之列而得到承保方的理賠。
S: Then all marine risksmeans less than all risks?
B: The English understand by Marine risksonly risks incident
to transport by sea, such as collision, standing, fire, penetration of
sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under the
all marine risks,losses recoverable will only be confined
to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents, whereas
the all riskscover will admit all losses occurring at any
time throughout the whole currency of the cover, irrespective of whether
they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense,all
marine risksprovides a more limited cover than all risks.
In insurance parlance, the termall marine risksis liable to
be misinterpreted and its use should be avoided in letters of credit.
Now let us turn to loses through inherent vice or nature of the
subject matter insured,such as deterioration of food, leakage of
liquid and breakage of glass or ceramics. These are not considered marine
risks. Risks of this kind must be specifically applied for and explicitly
accepted by the insurer.
史：那么一切海洋運輸貨物險是否意味著比一切險范圍狹一
些呢？ 白：英國人對海洋運輸貨物險只理解為海運中的意外風(fēng)險，諸如船舶碰撞，
擱淺，起火，海水進(jìn)入船艙等。換句話說，以一切海洋運輸貨物險投保，其
損失的 賠償只限于因海上災(zāi)難和海運意外事故所引起的損失，而保一切險，
在整個承保期內(nèi)的任何時間，不論在海上或陸上所產(chǎn)生的意外事故，其全部損失都予
以賠償。在這個含義上一切海洋運輸貨物險比一切險所承保的責(zé)任范圍
更為有限。按保險的說法，一切海洋運輸貨物險條款容易被誤解，應(yīng)避免在信
用證中使用?，F(xiàn)在我來談?wù)勔蜇浳飪?nèi)在缺陷或特性，諸如：由于物品變質(zhì)，液
體滲漏以及玻璃或陶瓷器破碎所引起的損失。這些都不認(rèn)為是海洋運輸貨物險。這類
特殊險別 必須特別投保并須得到承保方明確接受。
S: That seems clear enough, now that you have explained it. but what
I don't understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A.cover. I thought
that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks whilst, according
to what you say, this W.P.A. cover means very little. It seems to be a
phrase without much substance. Just what is the difference between W.P.A.
and F.P.A.?
B: Your question is very much to the point, Mr Smith. It is a very common
but mistaken idea that a merchant has done every common but mistaken idea
that a merchant has hone everything that is required to protect himself
against losses when he has taken out a W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps,
no mistake more detrimental to his interests.
史：現(xiàn)在經(jīng)你這樣解釋，似乎夠清楚了。不過現(xiàn)在我不明白的是，保水漬險
有什么好處。我想水漬險應(yīng)包括全部主要風(fēng)險，而根據(jù)你所說的，這種水漬險
所承保責(zé)任卻最很少。徒有其名而沒有很多內(nèi)容。那么水漬險和平安險
有什么區(qū)別呢？
白：史密斯先生，你的問題提到點子上來了。這是個很普遍，但是個錯誤的想法，那
就是商 人投保了水漬險便以為足以保障各種損失?？峙聸]有別的錯誤比這更為有害
于他們自己的利益。S: That interests me very much. I must confess that I was under the
impression that a W.P.A. insurance was quite sufficient and that losses
due to breakage were covered. I know that F.P.A. insurance dose not cover
losses on consumer goods, but I did think that the W.P.A. insurance covered
more risks than the F.P.A.
B: Actually it is like this. There is some difference between WPA and
FPA. The FPA clause does not cover partial loss of the nature of particular
average, whereas the WPA clause over such losses when they exceed a
prearranged prearranged percentage. For instance, when WPA3% cover is
taken out, a particular average loss under 3% of the insured amount
will not be recoverable but one amounting to or exceeding 3% of the
insured amount will be paid. This is the only difference between WPA
and FPA. Otherwise, the protection under the FPA clause will be almost
identical with that offered by the WPA clause, because in the event
of maritime accidents being encountered in transit, such as stranding ,
fire, explosion or collision, both clauses will cover particular
average losses in full. In present day particular, a WPAIOP cover,
that is,"With Particular Average Irrespective of percentage
is not infrequently granted, in which case all particular average losses
of an accidental nature will be recoverable and the protection will be
much wider than the FPA clause.
史：這很有意思。我得承認(rèn)以往我是以為投保水漬險就足夠了，包括由于破碎而引
起的損失在內(nèi)。我知道平安險并不包括消費品的種種損失。但我的確認(rèn)為水漬險承保的
范圍比平安險要寬得多。
白：實際上是這樣的。水漬險和平安險是有些不同。平安險條款不包括單獨海損性質(zhì)
的部分損失，而水債險條款當(dāng)超過事先商定的百分比時，則包括此類損失。譬如：投
保了;百分之三的水漬險;（WPA3%），當(dāng)單獨海損的損失在所保金額的百分之三以下
時。不賠，但是損失達(dá)到成超過所保金額百分之三時，則賠償。這是水漬險和平安險
唯一不同之處。除此之外，平安險所承擔(dān)的責(zé)任與水漬險所承擔(dān)的責(zé)任幾乎相同、因
為萬一在運輸途中遭遇海上意外事故，諸如擱淺、著火、爆炸或碰撞，這兩種保險條
款都全部賠償單獨海損的損失?，F(xiàn)行慣例，投保WPAIOP即"無免賠率的水清險;
是常常承保的，在這種情況下，屬于意外性質(zhì)的單獨海損的所有損失都將給予賠償，
承擔(dān)的責(zé)任范圍比平安險要寬闊得多。
S: I don't mean to annoy you, Mr Bai, I don't quite grasp this, Couldn't
you say it in more understandable terms?
B: I'll try. Neither the WPA nor the FPA mentions the risks covered or
the risks excluded. The extent of insurance is stipulated in the basic
policy form and in the various risks excluded. The extent of insurance
is stipulated in the basic policy form and in the various risk clauses.
Look at the insurance certificates and you will find that the risks of
theft and you will find that the risks of theft and pilferage, freshwater,
oil, grease, hooks, breakage, leakage, contamination, deterioration, etc.
are specifically mentioned, and must be specifically applied for. These
are special risks. FPA stands for ;Free from Particular Average;while
WPA or WA stands for "With Particular Average."
史：白先生，我并不想叫你生氣，不過我還抓不住要領(lǐng)，你能否用更易懂的語言談
一談呢？
白：我試試看。無論水漬險還是平安險都不指明包括那些險別，或不包括那些險別。
保險范圍是寫在基本保險單內(nèi)和在各種險別的條款里?？匆幌卤ｋU憑證，你看，對偷
竊除，淡水險，沾染油漬險，油污險，破損險，破碎險，滲漏險，沽污險，變質(zhì)險等，
都是特別提出來的，必須特別申保。這些就是特別險。FPA是代表"Free
from Particular Average"（平安險）而WPA或WA是代表"With ParticularAverage
（水漬險）。
S: Mr Bai, I must say that you have corrected my ideas about the insurance.
I see now that this is far more complicated than I ever imagined.
L: Now I know why you often point out to us the wording of some letter
of credit which you don't feel happy about. But what are we to do about
it? We must keep to the stipulations of the contract and the letter of
credit.
史:白先生，我該說你已經(jīng)糾正了我對保險的想法。我現(xiàn)在明白，保險問題比我以往
所想象的要復(fù)雜得多。
李：現(xiàn)在我才了解為什么你經(jīng)常向我們指出對某些信用證的措詞你感到不愉快。不過，
我們該怎么辦？我們一定要遵守合同和信用證的規(guī)定。
S: the blame rests not alone with the letter of credit. I think the Light
industrial Products Corporation should have understood from our letter
of credit that we wanted the cover of all risks, including the risk of
breakage. So the error was on both sides. I think the loss ought to be
shared by both parties. I think the loss ought to be shared by both parties
- let us say half and half.
L: Our price calculation could hardly admit that, Besides, we acted upon
your instructions so this is not our fault.
史：不單是信用證的過錯。我想輕工業(yè)品公司理應(yīng)從我們的信用證中領(lǐng)會到我們要保
的是一切險，包括破碎險在內(nèi)。所以雙方都有錯誤。我認(rèn)為損失應(yīng)由雙方承擔(dān)，我們就各
負(fù)擔(dān)一半吧。
李：我們所出的價格，難以接受你的提議。此外，我們是按照你們要求辦理的，所以這
不是 我們的過錯。
B: (rising )
I sincerely hope that you gentlemen will settle the to our mutual satisfaction.
S: It goes without saying that both parties must abide by the contract
terms which we have agreed upon and signed. This blunder, which is due
to my ignorance, costs me a pretty penny.
白：（站起身來）我衷心希望你們兩位把這件事解決好，使雙方都滿意。
史：毫無疑問，雙方必須遵守已經(jīng)同意并已簽署過的合同條款。這次疏忽是由于我的無
知，使我破費了不少錢。
L: We also have learned a lesson from this.
S: To compensate a part of the loss, may I ask you to make us a firm offer
for 50000pieces glazed wall tile CIF Manila including the risk of breakage,
November shipment?
李：我們也從這件事吸取了教訓(xùn)。
史：為了補償部分損失，可否請你們報給我們一個實盤，50000塊釉瓷磚， CIF馬尼拉，
包括破碎險，十一月裝船？
L: We'll make you an offer tomorrow. Come and see us at 9a.m.
S: Thank you. Then tomorrow at 9.
李：我們明天給你報盤，請上午九點來和我們碰頭。
史：謝謝你，明天九點再見。外貿(mào)業(yè)務(wù)談判進(jìn)程:Insurance Against Breakage 破碎險 S: Good afternoon, Mr. Li. I was to come at 4 o'clock, wasn't I?
Li: Yes, Mr. Smith, we have been expecting you.
(Li introduces Mr. Bai to Mr. Smith.)Mr. Smith, this is Mr. Bai of the
People's Insurance Company of China. He has come to explain that
unfortunate affair about the insurance.
史：李先生，午安。我應(yīng)該在四點鐘到，對嗎？
李：是的，史密斯先生。我們一直盼著你。（李向史密斯先生介紹白先生）史密斯
先生，這是中國人民保險公司白先生。他是來解釋這件保險的不幸事件。
S: Thank you for coming. Mr. Li, as you may recall, the February consignment
arrived at Manila seriously damaged. The loss through breakage was over
30% of the consignment. We've presented a claim to the underwriters through
your firm, but the insurance company refused to admit liability, as there
was no insurance against breakage. We naturally were not satisfied with
such a reply.
L: I should like to hear what Mr. Bai has to say about it. You know of
course that we, the sellers, are merely acting as mediators in this matter.
The underwriters are responsible for the claim, as far as it is within
the scope of cover.
B: That's just the point, gentlemen. The loss in question was beyond the
coverage granted by us. According to your instructions, we made out an
insurance certificate covering W.P., and the risk of breakage wasn't
mentioned in it. We rang up the Ceramics Section of the Light Industrial
Products Corporation but were told that their customer had not asked for
a cover of the risk of breakage.
史：謝謝你來了。李先生，你也許記得，這批二月份發(fā)運的貨，到馬尼拉時，破損
嚴(yán)重。損失超過這批貨的百分之三十。我們已通過你公司向保險公司提出索賠，但保險
公司拒絕負(fù)責(zé)，因為沒有投保破碎險。我們當(dāng)然對這種回答是不滿意的。
李：我想聽聽白先生有什么看法。當(dāng)然，你是知道的，我們賣方對這件事只是個調(diào)解
人。只要在保險責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)，保險公司就應(yīng)負(fù)賠償責(zé)任。
白：先生們，問題就在于這一點上。你說的損失并不包括在我方承保的責(zé)任范圍之
內(nèi)。根據(jù)你方要求，我們出具了承保水漬險的保險憑證，但沒提破碎險。我們曾經(jīng)
打電話給輕工業(yè)品公司陶瓷器部，但他們說客戶并未要求承保破碎險。
L: In the letter of credit only a cover for "all marine risks"
was requested. I should like to point out that our prices were calculated
without insurance of any special risk. So we applied for the usual W.P.A.
cover, and let our customers deal with the matter of breakage. Since the
validity of the letter of credit was to expire in two days, there was
no time to write for more detailed instructions. If the letter of credit
had been valid for a longer period, we should have had time to make the
matter thoroughly clear.
S: Mr. Li, our import license was only running up to the middle of February,
consequently we were not able to extend the validity of the letter of
credit. But we presume that the wording of our L/C implies covering the
risk of breakage. Besides, when I take a W.P.A. insurance, that is, with
particular average, I should think the risk of breakage is included. Breakage
is particular average, isn't it?
B: Not every breakage is a particular average. It is a particular average
when the breakage is resultant from natural calamities and maritime accidents,
such as stranding and sinking of the carrying vessel, or is attributable
to fire, explosion or collision. Without the occurrence of any such fortuities,
breakage is often considered as an ordinary loss and represents what we
call "inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured",
which is outside the scope of the cover.
李；信用證只要求投保"綜合海運險"。我想要指出的是，我們的價格
沒把任何特殊險計算在內(nèi)。所以，我們只投保了通常的水漬險，而讓我們客戶自行辦
理破碎險事宜。由于信用證兩天內(nèi)就要到期，來不及寫信要求做出更詳細(xì)的說明。如
果信用證有效期較長的話，我們就會有時間把事情徹底弄清楚。
史：李先生，我們進(jìn)口許可證的有效期到二月中截止，因此，我們無法延長信用證
有效期。但是，我方認(rèn)為信用證的措詞包含了要投保破碎險。此外，當(dāng)我投保水漬
險時，那就是with Particular Average,認(rèn)為是包括破碎險。破損，對嗎？
白：并不是所有的破碎險都屬于單獨海損。只意外事故所造成的破 沒，或歸因于
著火，爆炸或碰撞所引起的破損才算屬于單獨海損。如果沒發(fā)生上述事故，破碎險
便認(rèn)為最普通損失，也就是我們所說的由于"投保貨物內(nèi)在缺陷或特性所引
起的損失，它不屬于承保范圍之內(nèi)。
S: But the risk of breakage is covered by marine insurance, isn't it?
B: Certainly, but it is a usual practice to make specific mention in the
insurance policy or certificate that the risk of breakage is included.
The inclusion of this special risk will be subject to an additional premium,
which will normally be higher than the basic insurance for the ordinary
marine risks. The rate for such kind of risk will vary according to the
kind, or, as in ceramics, according to the fragility of the goods. I think
you know all about it.
史：但破碎險是包括在海洋運輸貨物險之內(nèi)的，對嗎？
白：當(dāng)然，可是按照慣例要在保險單或保險憑證上特加注明破碎險包括在內(nèi)。包
括這種特殊險就必須加付保險費；這種保險費一般比通常的海洋貨物運輸險的基
本險為 這類險別的保費率將根據(jù)貨物種類，比如陶瓷器，就根據(jù)貨物的易脆性
而有所不同。我想這一切你都知道的。
S: Well, I have heard something about it, but I can't say that it is
very clear to me.
B: Then let me explain this insurance.……
史：哦，我聽說過，但我不能說我對保險條款很清楚了。
白：那我來解釋一下這種保險……。
L: Mr Smith, would you care for a cup of tea? Or a cigarette?
S: A cup of tea, thank you. Let me hear more about it.
李：史密斯先生，想喝杯茶嗎？還是抽支煙呢？
史：謝謝，來杯茶吧。有關(guān)這種保險，還請你多多指教。
