• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    On Knock-for-Knock Principle:Analysis of SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)

    2019-03-06 13:36:28HANYunfei
    中華海洋法學(xué)評(píng)論 2019年4期
    關(guān)鍵詞:條款

    HAN Yunfei

    Abstract:In June 2017,the Baltic and International Maritime Council launched a revised version of its standard time charter party for offshore support vessels,codename as SUPPLYTIME 2017.SUPPLYTIME 2017 contains several changes based on SUPPLYTIME 2005,especially in the Clause 14(a)(Liabilities and Indemnities -Knock-for-Knock).SUPPLYTIME 2017 makes the knock-for-knock clauses better adapted to the current shipping market by extending the range of“Owners’ Group”and“Charterers’ Group”respectively,reducing the content of Proviso,and expanding the content of“Cause of Loss”.Through reviewing the history of knock-for-knock clauses,analyzing relevant legal precedents in British judicial practice,and comparing SUPPLYTIME 2005 with SUPPLYTIME 2017,this paper makes it clear that the knock-for-knock clauses of SUPPLYTIME 2017 shall not be boldly used nor unreasonably resisted or excluded.

    Key Words:SUPPLYTIME 2017;Knock-for-knock clauses;Offshore support vessels (OSVs)

    In June 2017,the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO)issued a standard time charter party for offshore support vessels (OSVs),code-named SUPPLYTIME 2017.This version has been long in the making and its release has given rise to a strong response in the chartering market of OSVs.BIMCO SUPPLYTIME is in widespread use in OSVs chartering.It acts as the“master contract”in a series of offshore exploration and service vessels charter contracts,such as the Standard Barge Charter Party (BARGEHIRE),the Standard Heavylift Charter Party (HEAVYCON),the International Ocean Towage Agreement(TOWCON and TOWHIRE),the Special Projects Charter Party (PROJECTCON).1Natalya Dolgikh,Chartering of survey Vessels on Terms of sUPPLYTIME 2005:some Legal Implications,Norway:University of Oslo,2010.SUPPLYTIME differs from other common time charter parties,such as the Uniform Time Charter (BALTIME,issued by BIMCO for the first time in 1909)and the New York Produce Exchange Form (also known as“Government Form”,published by the New York Produce Exchange for the first time in 1913).2SI Yuzhuo ed.,Maritime Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2003,p.221.(in Chinese)Marine support vessels refer to the special vessels offering service to natural resources exploitation,providing transit of supplies,materials and personnel for Offshore Units,and engaging in towing,anchoring,external firefighting and oil spill recovery operations.3CHEN Jun,CHEN Weiqiang,ZHENG Mei and HUANG Haibo,On the Classification of Offshore Support (Supply)Vessels’ Registration,China Maritime safety,Vol.11,2016,p.50.(in Chinese)With further development of offshore oil and gas resources exploitation,the challenges facing marine support vessels are increasingly severe.4ZHU Weilin,Advancements of Oil and Gas Exploration in China Offshore Area:Overview and Perspective,strategic study of CAE,Vol.5,p.22.(in Chinese)The offshore oil and gas exploration has been developing rapidly since the 1970s,and the requirements for OSVs such as offshore supply vessels have been increasing accordingly.5Simon Rainey,The Law of Tug and Tow,London:Informa Law,1996,p.121.Amended liabilities of parties in SUPPLYTIME 2017 may serve as a benchmark for future development of the same series of offshore resource exploration support vessels standard forms,and even impact the specific business segments of the shipping market.

    A partial revision of the knock-for-knock clauses contained in SUPPLYTIME 2017“Liabilities and Indemnities”section was conducted based on the relevant clauses in the SUPPLYTIME 2005.6“Knock-for-knock”can be translated into“互相免賠”or“互撞免賠”in Chinese.The author believes that the former translation can better reflect the meaning of this principle in the charter party;therefore,“knock-for-knock”in this paper is translated into“互相免賠”in Chinese.In essence,the knock-for-knock clauses entail an allocation of risk and responsibility,7BIMCO Explanatory Notes (6 November 2017),at https://www.bimco.org/contracts-andclauses/bimco-contracts/supplytime-2017#Clause%2014%20(Liabilities%20and%20 Indemnities),30 May 2019.which are important clauses based on the demand of the OSVs chartering practice.In this paper,the author explores the history of the knock-for-knock clauses and the philosophy behind them,analyzes the interpretation and application of knock-for-knock clauses in judicial practice,and clarifies the reasons for and the attitude of coping the amendment of Clause 14(a)of SUPPLYTIME 2017 by comparing SUPLYTIME 2017 and SUPPLYTIME 2005.

    There are two important changes in the knock-for-knock clauses of SUPPLYTIME 2017 in relation to the 2005 version of the time charter party:first,the content of Proviso,as the Charterers’ exemption clauses,was reduced from twelve to three clauses,and the Owners’ exemption clauses from four to two clauses;second,the wording of“Cause of Loss”has been partly refined with the addition of the expressions deployed to clarify and expand the scope of application of this clause,such as“breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)”,8SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i).“nonperformance”,9SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i)(ii).and“under any circumstances”.10SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i).Besides,the definitions of“Owners’ Group”and“Charterers’ Group”differ in SUPPLYTIME 2005 and SUPPLYTIEM 2017 respectively.These differences will be analyzed later for a better understanding of the knock-for-knock clauses.However,before making a detailed comparison of its abovementioned changes,it is crucial to explain the meaning of knock-for-knock clauses.

    I.The History of Knock-for-Knock Clauses and the Philosophy behind

    “Knock-for-knock”can be interpreted as a mutual exclusion of liability.It is closely related to the motorcycle insurance industry where the knock-for-knock clauses first appeared.Today,the knock-for-knock principle is acknowledged as being at the very core of the SUPPLYTIME by BIMCO.11Simon Rainey QC,The Law of Tug and Tow,3rd edition,London:Informa Law,2011,p.259.The knock-forknock clauses in SUPPLYTIME mean that each party should bear responsibility for any damage or loss to its own property,or injury to its own personnel,even if the damage,loss or personal injury is caused by the act,neglect or breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)of the other party.When the other party compensates the claimant,even if the loss of compensation filed by the claimant is caused by the other party’s act,neglect or breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise),the party shall still indemnify the other party for the compensation submitted by the claimant,and the compensation made by the party against the other party shall be called“knock-for-knock”indemnity.The essence of knockfor-knock clauses is that the parties,based on simple apportionment of risks and liabilities,replace the original fault liability by mutual agreement on a number of exemption and non-exemption items.12Simon Rainey QC,The Construction of Mutual Indemnities and Knock-for-knock Clauses in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn eds.,Offshore Contracts and Liabilities,London:Informa Law,2015,pp.70~71.

    The usual rule under most systems of law is that“the guilty party pays”,13Richard W.Williams,Knock-for-knock Clauses in Offshore Contracts:The Fundamental Principles in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn eds.,Offshore Contracts and Liabilities,London:Informa Law,2015,p.53.if loss or damage or personal injury is caused by the negligence,breach of statutory duty,etc.,of a particular party,that party is ultimately liable to compensate.However,whilst such a structure makes commercial and practical sense in dayto-day cases where there is a limited number of affected parties,such a structure becomes increasingly unattractive where the incident arises during activities that involve a large number of affected parties engaging in complex operations pursuant to complex contractual relationship.The desire to avoid such complexities and to reduce risks and uncertainties of all parties involved has long been recognized,especially for support vessels chartering involved in high-risk offshore oil and gas exploration.The pragmatism has been heavily weighted in favour of one party,as has been the case,for example,Clauses 3 and 4 under the UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services,which have been in use since 1933.14See 1986 UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services.Obviously,this liability regime is not acceptable to most participants in commercial activities.Thus a more balanced liability allocation has been developed to distribute specific risks or liabilities among the parties.The liability allocation system was born out of the motorcycle insurance industry and is as follows:the vehicle insured by the insurer collides with other vehicles and suffers damage.Even if the damage is caused by the fault of other vehicles,the insurer shall also bear the cost of the damage to the vehicle.The allocation mode of risks and liabilities was soon applied to the shipping industry.For example,in the New York Produce Exchange Interclub Agreement,it was applied to specific claims.In smit International(Deutschland)GmbH v.Josef Mobius Baugesellschaft GmbH &Co.,15[2001]EWHC 531 (Comm).Mr.Morison described the knock-for-knock principle as“a crude but workable allocation of risk and responsibility”.16[2001]EWHC 531 (Comm),p.19.With the rise of offshore oil and gas exploration,the principle of“knock-for-knock”has been widely applied to this type of business because of the large number of contracting parties and sub-contracting parties involved (for example,in The Piper Alpha,17[2000]1 SLT 1123;[2000]Lloyd’ s Rep IR 249 (CA).dozens of different contracting parties were involved in the death lawsuit).In order to avoid excessive complexity in commercial disputes resolution,the parties agree to be respectively liable for the loss or damage of their owned property as well as the death or injury of their own employees.In The Piper Alpha,Judge Bingham described this agreement between parties as“a market practice that has evolved to take into account the characteristics of offshore operations”.18[2002]UKHL 4;[2002]1 Lloyd’ s Rep 553 (HL),p.7.Subsequently,the principle of“knock-for-knock”was gradually extended from offshore oil and gas exploration contracts to other service contracts in exploration industry.It is adopted by BIMCO in a series of OSV chartering contracts,such as BARGEHIRE,HEAVYCON,PROJECTCON,SUPPLYTIME,TOWCON,and TOWHIRE.

    The knock-for-knock clauses are embodied in SUPPLYTIME 2005 as Clauses 14 (b)(i)and (ii),and in SUPPLYTIME 2017 as Clauses 14(a)(i)and (ii).The application of the knock-for-knock clauses generally has the following specific purpose and meaning:first,the primary parties and their employees and subcontractors constitute a“group”;19SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(a):“Owners’ Group”and“Charterers’ Group”;SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 1“Definitions”:“Owners’ Group”and“Charterers’ Group”.second,loss,damage or personal injury suffered by a member of the primary party’s group is borne by that primary party regardless of fault even if the loss,damage or personal injury is caused by the faults of any member of the group;third,group members (including employees,subcontractors and members of the primary party)have the same protection as the primary party by virtue of a Himalaya clause,in order to minimise the risk of conflicts in agreement between the sub-contractors and other members of the primary party group by compensation claims;20SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(e):“Himalaya Clause”;SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(d):“Himalaya Clause”.fourth,the allocation of risk is accompanied by an indemnity of other primary parties and their groups against any liability for claims,irrespective of fault.Where possible,the indemnity covers liability for employees and property of all parties for whose benefit the work is being undertaken;fifth,primary parties have insurance coverage to protect against losses or injuries and to underwrite their obligation to indemnify other primary parties and their groups.The insurers are generally required to waive their rights of subrogation against the other primary parties and their groups.

    For example,the legal relationships can be seen in the chart below:

    As shown above,employment relationship exists between the Owner and the Staffs on board,as well between the Charterer and the Charterer’s employees.If personal injury of the Staffs on board is caused by the improperly lashed petroleum reconnoiter equipment on the vessel due to the negligence of the Charterer’s employees,then:(a)there is legal relationship of tort compensation between the Charterer’s employees and the staffs on board;(b)Staff on board claims compensation for personal injury to the Charterer;(c)the Charter indemnifies the staffs on board for personal injury;(d)the Charterer claims compensation according to the knock-for-knock clauses;(e)the Owner indemnifies the Charterer for the compensation on personal injury of the staffs on board according to the knock-for-knock clauses;(f)the Owner claims to the insurer for the knock-for-knock indemnify that he has made;(g)the insurer indemnifies the Owner according to the insurance contract.

    Therefore,the knock-for-knock clauses operate both as a shield (the exclusion of liability)and as a sword (the right to enforce an indemnity).21BIMCO Explanatory Notes (6 November 2017),p.58,at https://www.bimco.org/contractsand-clauses/bimco-contracts/supplytime-2017#Clause%2014%20(Liabilities%20and%20 Indemnities),30 May 2019.The knock for knock scheme has the following advantages:first,it reduces the cost of enquiry and litigation;second,it facilitates the early resolution of claims;third,it enables the insurance industry to provide higher level of cover;fourth,it encourages cooperation in the establishment of good and safe work practices.

    II.Effect and Interpretation of Knock-for-Knock Clauses in British Judicial Practice

    A.British Courts’ Affirmative Attitude towards the Force of the Knockfor-Knock Clauses

    In the early stage of judicial practice,mutual indemnities are merely species of exemption or exclusion clauses under a contract which a party seeks:(a)to exclude its liabilitiesto the other partyfor specified loss even where that loss results from its own negligence or breach of contract;and (b)to compel the other party to indemnify it in respect of any claims or liabilities to employees of the other party or third parties,again even in circumstances where the claim or liability results from a breach of contract or negligence.The elements of a standard knock-forknock clause simply correspond to the typical forms of indemnity clauses22“賠償條款”in Chinese normally refers to“Indemnity Clause”in English.in contract which are generally regarded as comprising two broad categories.The first category consists of clauses where one party agrees to indemnify the other against liability which that other may have towards him.In such a case,the indemnity is merely a reinforced exemption clause and has for this reason been described (by Judge Fraser in smith v.south Wales switchgear Co.Ltd.)23[1978]1 WLR 165.as“the obverse of an exemption clause”.24[1978]1 WLR 165,p.168.The second part includes the following content:one party agrees to bear the liability for the third party that the other party might otherwise incur.Although this is not an exemption,it can be seen as an extension of the exemption.24[1978]1 WLR 165,p.168.The general rule applicable to this clause is that the clause must be constituted in clear and unambiguous language to ensure its validity.25[1978]1 WLR 165,p.168.It is no different in nature from a simple exemption clause.The second category consist of clauses in which one party to the contract agrees to indemnify the other party against liability which that other party may incur towards third parties.This,too,while not as such an exemption,is regarded as an extension of an exemption clause.

    The general rule applied to such clauses is that,in order to be effective,clear and unambiguous language must be used.This is particularly the case where the indemnity is sought to be applied in relation to a loss caused by the negligence of the party to be indemnified by the other party.In smith v.south Wales switchgear Co.Ltd.,Judge Fraser held that“when considering the meaning of the clause,it should be essentially impossible for one party to agree to relieve the other party of the liability caused by the act of the other party”.25[1978]1 WLR 165,p.168.In smith v.south Wales switchgear Co.Ltd.,which focuses on the compensation in favor of one party unilaterally,when considering the nature of each indemnity separately,the mutual indemnity agreement has a negative effect on the court’s interpretation in judicial practice.It is only when the clause is constructed by clear and unambiguous language that the court’s attitude towards the determination of mutual indemnity becomes better.Although the knock-for-knock clauses may be interpreted by the court in consistent with business practice,it still needs to meet the requirements of ordinary contract terms.It can be seen that under common law,the knock-forknock clauses are not completely excluded by the court.However,there are certain restrictions and requirements which apply to the cases in which the parties of the charter party opt to employ the clause smoothly.

    Investigating the interpretations of similar clauses in judicial practice will contribute to a further analysis on knock-for-knock clauses in action.On 6 June 1988,an explosion happened on the Piper Alpha,an oil platform in the North Sea.The accident killed or injured 226 people and caused huge property loss and damage.The accident was caused by an employee of the oil platform operator who started a pump without noticing that a pressure safety valve had been removed for maintenance by a specialist valve contractor.Due to the negligence of both the operator and the valve contractor,hydrocarbons escaped and ignited when the pump was engaged.Subsequently,the insurer instituted a series of subrogated proceedings in England and Scotland against contractors seeking indemnity under the knock-for-knock provisions in the respective contracts.In Caledonia North sea Ltd.v.British Telecommunications PLC,26[2002]1 Lloyd’ s Rep 553.there were 37 employees of the oil platform operator with 189 employees of different contractors.After the insurer of the oil platform operator indemnified the survivors or their families,the oil platform operator claimed to the court according to the knock-for-knock clauses,requiring the contractor to bear the liability for the death or injury of its employees.The court found that the contractor was not liable for any infringement or breach of contract by the oil platform operator,and the oil platform operator’s claim was based solely on the knock-for-knock clauses.

    The court of first instance denied any validity of the mutual indemnification clause involved in the case and thus dismissed the oil platform operator’s claims accordingly.In subsequent appeals,however,Scotland’s highest civil court and the House of Lords,which has exercised jurisdiction on behalf of the highest civil court since 2009,gave opposite opinions.Judge Bingham explained the commercial importance behind the mutual indemnification clauses based on the analysis of a series of academic works,such as Offshore Oil and Gas Insurance by David W.Sharpe,Manual of United Kingdom Oil and Gas Law by Terence Daintith and Geoffrey Willoughby.Judge Hoffmann held that“the existence of the crossindemnity and the findings of industry practice made by the Lord Ordinary dispel any concern that it would be unreasonable to require the contractors to indemnify the operator against loss for which the contractors were not responsible.”27[2002]1 Lloyd’ s Rep 553,p.81.In judicial practice,due to the consideration of commercial importance,the court chooses to affirm the effect of mutual indemnification clauses or knock-forknock clauses more often.In addition,the means to restrict the application of the knock-for-knock principle through defining specific noncompliance acts etc.were opposed in other cases.In smit International (Deutschland)GmbH v.Josef Mobius Baugesellschaft GmbH &Co.,Judge Morison held that“introducing argument about seaworthiness into this blunt and crude regime would lessen the effectiveness of the knock-for-knock agreement”.28[2001]EWHC 531 (Comm),p.20.

    B.British Courts’ Cautious Attitude towards the Interpretation of the Knock-for-Knock Clauses

    Excessive interpretation and application of the knock-for-knock clauses should be avoided although its validity has been affirmed in judicial practice.In E.E.Caledonia Ltd.v.Orbit Valve Co.,29[1994]1 WLR 221.the court acknowledged the clauses’ risk allocation of the parties in commercial activities,but took a conservative attitude on whether negligence was included in the cause of property loss or personal injury.The court agreed with the commercial purpose behind the knock-for-knock principle,and Judge Hobhouse made it clear that“it is entirely reasonable to see Clause 10(b)as a broader provision based on knock-for-knock in consistent with business practice.”30[1994]1 WLR 221,p.228.However,the court made a negative evaluation on the cause of loss by negligence,based on the general interpretation principle of exemption or exclusion clauses in the contract.Judge Hobhouse thought that drafting of commercial contract reflected the basic principles of statute laws and court decisions.Certainty and fairness are the basic principles of contract formulation.The parties may choose different wording to express different meanings of the terms.But highly ambiguous general terms are insufficient to identify liability for negligence,thus nobody need not bear it.31[1994]1 WLR 221,p.229.

    Similarly,in The Ekha,32[2010]1 Lloyd’ s Rep 543the focus of dispute by the court was on the application of general principles of contract interpretation in the liabilities allocation clauses under common law.Judge Moore-Bick in trial on appeal held that there was nothing wrong with the parties in commercial activities seeking certainty in law and contract,but there were many different practices affecting the achievement of the above purpose.Traditionally,the precise scope of obligations of the parties will be determined first,then the liability for loss under the general principles of law.This is different from the liability distribution clauses in SUPPLYTIME.It is inappropriate to allocate liability for loss only by enacting liability clauses rather than determining the precise scope of obligations of the parties.33[2010]EWCA Civ 691,p.18.Thus,although the British courts hold that the knock-for-knock or mutual indemnification clauses are made for necessary commercial purposes and do require different interpretations,the same basic principles that apply to general exemption or exclusion clauses need to be applied to such clauses as well.

    III.New Developments in the Knock-for-Knock Clauses of SUPPLYTIME 2017

    A.Knock-for-Knock Clauses of sUPPLYTIME 2017 and sUPPLYTIME 2005

    According to the standard form issued by BIMCO,the knock-for-knock clauses in SUPPLYTIME 2005 are embodied in Clause 14 (b),where Clauses (i)and (ii)are for Owners and Charterers respectively.The wording of Clauses (i)and (ii)is similar while the exceptions to liability and the wording details are not exactly the same.Clause 14 (b)(i)refers to the knock-for-knock liability to be borne by the Owners,in which there are 12 subclauses in total concerning the exceptions to the Owners’ liability:

    Clause 6(c)(iii):“The Charterers shall indemnify the Owners in respect of any loss,damage or liability whatsoever and howsoever arising from explosives and dangerous cargo”;

    Clause 9(b):“At all times the Charterers shall provide and pay for the loading and unloading of cargoes”;

    Clause 9(e):“The Charterers shall pay for any replacement of any anchor handling/towing/lifting wires and accessories which have been placed on board by the Owners or the Charterers”;

    Clause 9(f):“The Charterers shall pay for any fines,taxes or imposts levied on the goods as part of the cargo and/or in containers on board”;

    Clause 10(d):“The Charterers shall be liable for any loss or damage to the Owners caused by the supply of unsuitable fuels or fuels which do not comply with the specifications and grades”;

    Clause 11:“BIMCO IsPs or MTsA Clauses for time charters parties”;

    Clause 12(f)(iv):“The Charterer shall indemnify the Owners in respect of any liability incurred by the Owners under the Bill of Lading or any other contract of carriage as a consequence of the Owners’ proper suspension of and/or withdrawal from any or all of their obligations under this Charter Party”;

    Clause 14(d):“Limitations”;

    Clause 15(b):“Pollution”;

    Clause 18(c):“saving of life and salvage”;

    Clause 26:“General Average and New Jason Clause”;

    Clause 27:“Both-to-Blame Collision Clause”.

    Clause 14(b)(ii)is about the knock-for-knock indemnity the Charterers should bear.There are four exception circumstances of the Charterers’ liability:

    Clause 11:“BIMCO IsPs or MTsA Clauses for time charters parties”;

    Clause 15(a):“Pollution”;

    Clause 16:“Wreck Removal”;

    Clause 26:“General Average and New Jason Clause”.

    There are far more exceptions to the liability of the Owners than of the Charterers.Such construction of clauses indicate that BIMCO was more in favor of the Owners when formulating SUPPLYTIME 2005,so these clauses are more beneficial to the Owners.

    There are differences in the wording between the main body of Clause 14(b)(i)and (ii):first,the scope of the“Owners’ Group”and the“Charterers’ Group”in Clause 14(b)varies;the“Owners’ Group”includes Owners,contractors and subcontractors,employees of any of the foregoing,while the“Charterers’ Group”includes Charterers,contractors and sub-contractors,co-ventures and clients.In other words,when the Charterer and its group members undertake the knock-forknock indemnity for the Owner,the scope of subjects involved is larger.Second,the exceptions to the Charterers’ liability are the loss or damage of properties or personal injury of the Owner’ group,while the exceptions to the Owners’ liability are the loss or damage of properties or personal injury of the Charterer’ group.Property abovementioned refers to any cargo laden upon or carried by the Vessel or her tow,including their Offshore Units.And the subject of personal injury in this clause includes any member of the Charters’ Group or of anyone on board anything towed by the Vessel.In comparison,the scope of exemption for the Owners is wider than that for the Charterers.

    According to the standard form issued by BIMCO,the knock-for-knock clauses in SUPPLYTIME 2017 are embodied in Clause 14(a),where subclauses(i)and (ii)are for Owners and Charterers respectively.The wording of subclauses(i)is similar to that of (ii)while the exceptions to liability and body details are not worded in the same way.Clause 14(a)(i)refers to the knock-for-knock liability to be borne by the Owners,in which there are three subclauses in total concerning the exceptions to the Owners’ liability:

    Clause 9(e):“The Charterers shall pay for any replacement of any anchor handling/towing/lifting wires and accessories which have been placed on board by the Owners or the Charterers”;

    Clause 14(d):“Limitations”;

    Clause 18 (c):“saving of life and salvage”.

    Clause 14(a)(ii)refers to the knock-for-knock liability to be borne by the Charterers,in which concerning the exceptions to the Charterers’ liability amount to 2 subclauses:

    The second half of Clause 9(e):“The Charterers shall pay for any replacement of any anchor handling/towing/lifting wires and accessories,should such equipment be lost or damaged as a result of the Owners’ negligence”;

    Clause 16:“Wreck Removal”.

    In contrast to exceptions to the Owners’ liability,the ones to the Charterers’liability are slightly more.Apparently,the exclusion clauses are not one-to-one,mainly because the Owner and the Charterer play different roles,enjoy different rights and exercise different obligations in the OSVs chartering business.

    The wording details in the body of Clause 14(a)(i)and (ii)differ:first,the exceptions to the Charterers’ liability are the loss or damage of properties or personal injury of the Owners’ group,while the exceptions to the Owners’liability are extended to the loss or damage of properties or personal injury of the Charterers’ group.Property abovementioned refers to any Charterers’ cargo laden upon or carried by the Vessel or her tow,including their Offshore Units.And the subject of personal injury in this clause includes any member of the Charters’ Group as well as anyone on board anything towed by the Vessel.Second,exceptions to the Charterers’ liability were described as“in any way connected with the performance or non-performance of this Charter Party whatsoever or in any circumstances …caused wholly or partially by the act,neglect,breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)or default of the Charterers’ Group”.Exceptions to the Charterers’liability were described as“in any way connected with the performance or nonperformance of this Charter Party whatsoever or in any circumstances”.

    B.Comparisons between Knock-for-Knock Clauses of sUPPLYTIME 2005 and sUPPLYTIME 2017

    1.Comparison of“Owners’ Group”and“Charterer’s Group”

    In SUPPLYTIME 2005,“Owners’ Group”and“Charters’ Group”are defined in Clause 14(a):“Owners’ Group”refers to the Owners,and their contractors and sub-contractors,and employees of any of the foregoing.34SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(a)(i):“the Owners,and their contractors and sub-contractors,and employees of any of the foregoing”.“Charters’ Group”refers to the Charterers,and their contractors,sub-contractors,co-ventures and customers,employees of any of the foregoing.35SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(a)(i):“the Charterers,and their contractors,sub-contractors,co-ventures and customers,and employees of any of the foregoing”.In SUPPLYTIME 2017,the definitions of“Owners’ Group”and“Charters’ Group”are embodied in“Definitions”.“Owners’Group”means Owners,Owner’s affiliates,contractors and sub-contractors,employees of any of the foregoing.36SUPPLYTIME 2017“Definitions”:“(i)Owners;and (ii)Owners’ affiliates;and (iii)contractors and sub-contractors;and (iv)employees of any of the foregoing”.“Charters’ Group”means Charterers and Charterers’ clients,co-ventures of any of the foregoing,affiliates of any of the foregoing,contractors and sub-contractors,employees of any of any of the foregoing.37SUPPLYTIME 2017“Definitions”:“(i)Charterers and Charterers’ clients;and (ii)coventures of any of the foregoing;and (iii)affiliates of any of the foregoing;and (iv)contractors and sub-contractors;and (v)employees of any of the foregoing”.

    Compared with SUPPLYTIME 2005,a significant change in SUPPLYTIME 2017 in terms of“Owners’ Group”and“Charters’ Group”is that the definitions which originally were in Clause 14(a)are moved to“Definitions”at the beginning of the time charter party.It clarifies the definitions of and the philosophy behind the subjects and highlights their importance.Types of specific subjects increased under the amended definition.Such addition in the new version comes along with the diversification of participants in offshore natural resources exploration and marine engineering service activities as well as the increase of subjects involved after disputes have occurred.Allowing more subjects to enjoy the knock-for-knock clauses is more consistent with the original intention and purpose of the clauses.

    2.Comparison of Proviso Contents

    Proviso of SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(b)(i)provides twelve liabilities that the Charterers are not exempt from the knock-for-knock scheme,as stated in the previous section.Proviso of SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i)provides three liabilities.SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i)mainly describes the liabilities to bear by the Owner.

    The main part of the clause is about the loss to be borne by the Owner,while the Proviso is about the liability which the Charterer shall not be exempt from,that is,the exceptions to the Owners’ liability.

    Compared to SUPPLYTIME 2005,the amount of clauses in SUPPLYTIME 2017 has reduced from twelve to three,with the following remaining:

    Clause 9(e):“The Charterers shall pay for any replacement of any anchor handling/towing/lifting wires and accessories which have been placed on board by the Owners or the Charterers”;

    Clause 14(d):“Limitations”;

    Clause 18(c):“saving of life and salvage”.

    In SUPPLYTIME2005,there are four liabilities in the Proviso of Clause 14(b)(ii),and two in the Proviso of Clause 14(a)(ii).In SUPPLYTIME 2017,only the following remained:

    The second half of Clause 9(e):“The Charterers shall pay for any replacement of any anchor handling/towing/lifting wires and accessories,should such equipment be lost or damaged as a result of the Owners’ negligence”;

    Clause 16:“Wreck Removal”.

    The author of this paper holds the opinion that,for the subclauses (i)in these two versions,the content of Proviso has sharply reduced for two reasons.First,the expanded definitions of“Owners’ Group”and“Charters’ Group”allow more participants to be involved in the knock-for-knock clauses,which amendment will help by balancing the chartering market and the relationship between the Owner and the Charterer.Second,the reduction of the Proviso means that the liabilities that the Owner should assume to the Charterer through knock-for-knock regime increases,reflecting the positions of both abovementioned subjects in the chartering market.

    Since the global economic crisis in 2008,due to the high number of ships and the sharp decline in demand,the chartering market has gradually changed from Owners’ market to Charterers’ market,forcing the Owners to expand the scope of their responsibilities in order to comply with the changes in market supply and demand.For the two versions of the subclauses (ii),the reduction of Proviso content attributes to similar reason to that of subclauses (i).Out of the balance philosophy behind the BIMCO contracts,fairness and balance are characterized by BIMCO when developing its ethics so as to maintain a healthy development of the chartering market.38Grant Hunter,BIMCO’s Offshore Contracts in Baris Soyer and Andrew Tettenborn eds.,Offshore Contracts and Liabilities,London:Informa Law,2015,p.5.

    3.Comparison of“Cause of Loss”

    In SUPPLYTIME 2005,property loss,damage or personal injury is“arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this Charter Party […]caused wholly or partially by the act,neglect,or default of the Charterers’ Group”.39SUPPLYTIME 2005 Clause 14(b)(i):“……arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this Charter Party,even if such loss,damage,injury or death is caused wholly or partially by the act,neglect,or default of the Charterers’ Group……”.In SUPPLYTIME 2017,property loss,damage or personal injury is“arising out of or in any way connected with the performance or non-performance of this Charter Party whatsoever or in any circumstances […]caused wholly or partially by the act,neglect,breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)or default of the Charterers’ Group”.40SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)(i):“……arising out of or in any way connected with the performance or non-performance of this Charter Party whatsoever and in any circumstances,even if such loss,damage or personal injury or death is caused wholly or partially by the act,neglect,breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)or default of the Charterers’Group……”.

    The words“breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)”,“nonperformance”,and“in any way”were added to SUPPLYTIME 2017 in order to prevent application disputes arising out of provisions with similar wording as the SUPPLYTIME 2005.In the A Turtle,41[2009]1 Lloyd’s Rep.177.regarding the knock-for-knock clause,Judge Teare said that“the wording of the Clause was sufficiently wide that,construed literally […]the Clause would protect the tug Owner provided it was actually performing their obligation under the TOWCON,albeit not at the required standard.”In other words,when contractual obligations are no longer being performed,such an act would exclude the operation of a knock-for-knock clause.As stated in the Clause that“arising out of or in any way connected with the performance or non-performance of this Charter Party whatsoever or in any circumstances,even if such loss,damage or personal injury or death is caused wholly or partially by the unseaworthiness of any vessel”,it helps to determine that“act,neglect,breach of duty”actually amounts to a breach of contract.Nevertheless,clearer conditions shall be imposed for application to“breach of contract”.In Clause 14 of SUPPLYTIME 2005,the word“perform”is often given priority.The Clause explicitly refers to the loss or damage that occurred in the performance of the Charter Party,rather than what Judge Teare considered in the A Turtle that“was actually performing their obligation under the TOWCON,albeit not at the required standard”.

    Thus,the addition of“breach of obligation (statutory or otherwise)”and“nonperformance”in SUPPLYTIME 2017 clarifies the context that which used to be ambiguous.It further expanded the scope of application of the knock-for-knock clauses and helps to reduce the disputes in shipping andjudicial practice.

    C.Evaluation of sUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)

    No matter how special the business SUPPLYTIME applies to,it is still a time charter party.As a type of contract by which“the Owner provides ships to the Charterer according to contract with crew equipped,the Charterer uses the ships and pays the rent within the prescribed period according to the purposes established upon reaching the agreement,42FU Tingzhong,Matitime Law,Beijing:Law Press China,2007,p.275.(in Chinese)it is essentially“a legal form reflecting transaction”43WANG Liming ed.,Civil Law,5th edition,Beijing:China Renmin University Press,2010,p.360.(in Chinese)as well as“an consensus with joint effect on the civil law”.44WANG Liming,CUI Jianyuan and WANG Yi,Contract Law,3rd edition,Beijing:Peking University Press,2004,p.2.(in Chinese)Therefore,SUPPLYTIME cannot be separated from the basic application and interpretation of the contract.In the chartering practice,the parties usually modify some clauses in a small scope on the basis of the standard form they agree on,and finally formulate a“l(fā)egal lock”connecting the parties.Evaluation of the definitions of“Owners’ Group”and“Charters’ Group”comes before the one on SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(a)due to the change in the definition of the subjects.The expanded definition of both subjects is good for the offshore natural resources exploration industry and the OSV chartering industry.Knock-for-knock clauses are originally designed for commercial convenience to deal with complex relationships between the parties in the industry.With the continuous development of ship science and technology,the continuous refinement of social work division,and the increasing subjects participating in this field,expanding scope of applicable subjects of knock-for-knock clauses actually strengthens its effectiveness,and contributes to smoother business practice.

    The contents of Proviso in SUPPLYTIME 2017 Clause 14(i)and (ii)are less than the previous version.In SUPPLYTIME 2017,the difference in capacity between these two subjects is slight,indicating that the position of Owner and Charter in the market tends to be balanced.It should be noted that the Proviso items corresponding to different subjects are different.BIMCO removes other items liabilities except the existing ones.The parties should pay attention to the removed contents of Proviso.The liability originally borne by the other party shall be borne by one party after the modification of the contract terms.Additional attention shall be given to the specific business involved in the change so as to reduce the sense of inadaptability and lower the risks borne by one party.

    For the changes to the“Cause of Loss”in SUPPLYTIME 2017,the addition of“breach of duty (whether statutory or otherwise)”,“non-performance”,“in any circumstances”:(a)expands the scope and strengthens the effectiveness of the knock-for-knock clauses by adding the liability condition;(b)is consistent with the requirement of the knock-for-knock clause with the judicial practice.The wording of SUPPLYTIME 2017 is clearer and more unambiguous,providing the parties a more transparent and understandable expression for commercial behavior,which reduces the probability of misunderstanding due to ambiguous wording of the contract and lowers the possibility that the court might take a negative attitude towards knock-for-knock clauses which do not conform to the basic principles.

    IV.Conclusion

    The knock-for-knock clauses of SUPPLYTIME 2017 have been better adapted to shipping practices by expanding the range of bodies and applicable conditions as well as reducing the content of Proviso.Such modification plays a positive role in promoting the development of the industry,increasing the wealth of the whole society,deceasing litigation costs,reducing disputes over the liabilities of parties,and saving judicial resources.However,whether the knock-for-knock clauses could accurately solve problems in responsibility distribution depends on the commercial ability,risk prevention awareness and risk resolution ability of the parties.At present,the knock-for-knock clauses of SUPPLYTIME 2017 should be cautiously and optimistically treated.Aggressive use and unwarranted resistance or exclusion to the clause should be avoided.The effectiveness will be tested in the shipping practices.

    猜你喜歡
    條款
    對(duì)《電動(dòng)汽車安全要求》(GB 18384—2020)若干條款的商榷
    性侵未成年人新修訂若干爭議條款的理解與適用
    妨害安全駕駛罪條款解析
    法律方法(2021年4期)2021-03-16 05:35:32
    購房合同中的“霸王條款”不得不防
    正確審視“紐約假期”條款
    中國外匯(2019年15期)2019-10-14 01:00:48
    eUCP條款歧義剖析
    中國外匯(2019年12期)2019-10-10 07:26:58
    霸王條款等
    論《TRIPS協(xié)定》例外條款解釋的擴(kuò)張化趨勢
    合理使用“一般條款”駁
    制定一般反濫用條款:達(dá)成平衡
    美女免费视频网站| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 在线观看www视频免费| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 午夜免费成人在线视频| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 免费高清视频大片| 成人国产综合亚洲| 在线播放国产精品三级| 两性夫妻黄色片| 满18在线观看网站| 在线天堂中文资源库| 亚洲第一av免费看| 午夜两性在线视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 99久久国产精品久久久| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 亚洲第一av免费看| 欧美亚洲日本最大视频资源| 国产免费男女视频| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 桃色一区二区三区在线观看| 母亲3免费完整高清在线观看| 丰满的人妻完整版| av天堂在线播放| 看片在线看免费视频| 久99久视频精品免费| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 在线视频色国产色| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看 | 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 啦啦啦免费观看视频1| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 色哟哟哟哟哟哟| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| av片东京热男人的天堂| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 叶爱在线成人免费视频播放| 午夜影院日韩av| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 欧美zozozo另类| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 一本久久中文字幕| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 美女午夜性视频免费| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 成人精品一区二区免费| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕| 很黄的视频免费| 男女视频在线观看网站免费 | 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 久久这里只有精品19| 久久九九热精品免费| 日本 欧美在线| 午夜福利一区二区在线看| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 91字幕亚洲| 在线观看www视频免费| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 两个人看的免费小视频| 日本三级黄在线观看| 婷婷丁香在线五月| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 黄片大片在线免费观看| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 嫩草影院精品99| 日韩欧美三级三区| 欧美午夜高清在线| 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产精品香港三级国产av潘金莲| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 香蕉丝袜av| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 国产精品久久久久久精品电影 | 在线av久久热| 日本一区二区免费在线视频| 女警被强在线播放| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 这个男人来自地球电影免费观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 国产真实乱freesex| 亚洲人成电影免费在线| 免费在线观看亚洲国产| 国产成人欧美在线观看| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 精品日产1卡2卡| 色av中文字幕| 亚洲avbb在线观看| 久久伊人香网站| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 99久久综合精品五月天人人| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| 国产片内射在线| 亚洲 欧美一区二区三区| 中文资源天堂在线| 香蕉久久夜色| 好看av亚洲va欧美ⅴa在| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 一本大道久久a久久精品| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 欧美日韩黄片免| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观 | 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 国产成人影院久久av| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 在线观看日韩欧美| 日韩一卡2卡3卡4卡2021年| 国产区一区二久久| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 91老司机精品| 国产免费男女视频| 搞女人的毛片| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 一区福利在线观看| 黄片小视频在线播放| 哪里可以看免费的av片| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 麻豆成人午夜福利视频| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久 | 亚洲真实伦在线观看| 午夜久久久在线观看| 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 国产亚洲欧美98| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 两个人看的免费小视频| 91在线观看av| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 又黄又粗又硬又大视频| 又黄又爽又免费观看的视频| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 男女午夜视频在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久, | 老司机午夜十八禁免费视频| 很黄的视频免费| 在线av久久热| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 脱女人内裤的视频| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 日本五十路高清| 日韩免费av在线播放| 精品久久久久久,| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 成人午夜高清在线视频 | 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 免费av毛片视频| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站 | x7x7x7水蜜桃| 中文字幕最新亚洲高清| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 精品福利观看| 精品电影一区二区在线| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产私拍福利视频在线观看| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| a在线观看视频网站| 国产区一区二久久| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 日韩中文字幕欧美一区二区| 久久久久久人人人人人| 亚洲自拍偷在线| 老汉色av国产亚洲站长工具| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区 | 久久婷婷成人综合色麻豆| 日本免费a在线| 中文字幕人妻丝袜一区二区| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 精品久久久久久久末码| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区 | 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 丰满的人妻完整版| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 色老头精品视频在线观看| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频| tocl精华| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 91国产中文字幕| 黑人欧美特级aaaaaa片| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 丰满的人妻完整版| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 在线观看日韩欧美| 两个人看的免费小视频| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 亚洲男人的天堂狠狠| 国产日本99.免费观看| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 欧美激情久久久久久爽电影| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 制服诱惑二区| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 麻豆av在线久日| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看 | 午夜激情av网站| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 国产精品亚洲一级av第二区| 欧美日韩瑟瑟在线播放| 女人爽到高潮嗷嗷叫在线视频| 三级毛片av免费| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av在线| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 侵犯人妻中文字幕一二三四区| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 岛国在线观看网站| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产亚洲精品一区二区www| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 国产1区2区3区精品| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 国产精品一区二区精品视频观看| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 亚洲精品美女久久av网站| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 久久香蕉国产精品| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 夜夜躁狠狠躁天天躁| 男男h啪啪无遮挡| 少妇粗大呻吟视频| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 亚洲精品色激情综合| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站 | 成年版毛片免费区| 国产成人精品久久二区二区免费| 久久这里只有精品19| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 黄色视频,在线免费观看| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区 | 免费观看人在逋| 黄频高清免费视频| 国产成人av教育| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 免费无遮挡裸体视频| 美女免费视频网站| 亚洲精品中文字幕一二三四区| 大香蕉久久成人网| www.精华液| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区 | 一级毛片精品| 欧美日韩黄片免| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 色综合亚洲欧美另类图片| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产av在哪里看| 999久久久国产精品视频| 级片在线观看| 热re99久久国产66热| 国产成人系列免费观看| 国产av不卡久久| 久久精品成人免费网站| 很黄的视频免费| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 丁香六月欧美| 妹子高潮喷水视频| 两个人免费观看高清视频| 国产精品久久视频播放| 国产成人av教育| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频 | 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久 | 男女视频在线观看网站免费 | 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美乱码精品一区二区三区| 午夜两性在线视频| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 国产三级在线视频| 欧美一级毛片孕妇| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 亚洲欧美激情综合另类| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 成人精品一区二区免费| 亚洲人成网站在线播放欧美日韩| 美女免费视频网站| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 在线观看www视频免费| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 国产日本99.免费观看| 日韩大码丰满熟妇| 99久久国产精品久久久| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 精品国产国语对白av| 欧美日韩精品网址| 欧美日本亚洲视频在线播放| 在线永久观看黄色视频| 免费搜索国产男女视频| xxxwww97欧美| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 91成人精品电影| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| netflix在线观看网站| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 99久久国产精品久久久| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 亚洲av成人av| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 一夜夜www| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 高清在线国产一区| 观看免费一级毛片| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 亚洲三区欧美一区| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 美女国产高潮福利片在线看| 此物有八面人人有两片| 国产精品九九99| 国产精华一区二区三区| 性欧美人与动物交配| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 亚洲电影在线观看av| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 嫩草影院精品99| 国产精品av久久久久免费| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 少妇被粗大的猛进出69影院| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| av片东京热男人的天堂| 国产aⅴ精品一区二区三区波| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 国产日本99.免费观看| 日韩视频一区二区在线观看| www.www免费av| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看 | 免费高清视频大片| 亚洲aⅴ乱码一区二区在线播放 | av天堂在线播放| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 成人一区二区视频在线观看| 国产亚洲av高清不卡| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 日本免费a在线| 精品久久久久久久久久久久久 | 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 香蕉久久夜色| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 精品一区二区三区视频在线观看免费| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 长腿黑丝高跟| 欧美zozozo另类| 国产激情久久老熟女| 超碰成人久久| 久久精品aⅴ一区二区三区四区| 一区二区三区精品91| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 此物有八面人人有两片| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 亚洲成国产人片在线观看| 亚洲最大成人中文| 国产黄片美女视频| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 亚洲五月天丁香| 九色国产91popny在线| 午夜影院日韩av| 黑丝袜美女国产一区| 欧美日韩一级在线毛片| 黑人操中国人逼视频| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 无人区码免费观看不卡| 美国免费a级毛片| 黄网站色视频无遮挡免费观看| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 欧美成狂野欧美在线观看| 亚洲精品av麻豆狂野| 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆 | 深夜精品福利| 露出奶头的视频| 99热这里只有精品一区 | 精品高清国产在线一区| 99热只有精品国产| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 亚洲专区国产一区二区| 长腿黑丝高跟| 日韩高清综合在线| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 亚洲 国产 在线| 天堂√8在线中文| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 美女午夜性视频免费| 青草久久国产| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 午夜视频精品福利| 国产成人精品无人区| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 欧美黑人巨大hd| 观看免费一级毛片| 伊人久久大香线蕉亚洲五| av在线天堂中文字幕| 久久久久久久久免费视频了| 嫩草影视91久久| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 青草久久国产| 亚洲一区中文字幕在线| 长腿黑丝高跟| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 午夜福利免费观看在线| aaaaa片日本免费| 国产激情欧美一区二区| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 热99re8久久精品国产| 少妇熟女aⅴ在线视频| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 成人亚洲精品av一区二区| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久, | 热99re8久久精品国产| 一本综合久久免费| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 亚洲自偷自拍图片 自拍| 国产不卡一卡二| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 久久人人精品亚洲av| 久久精品91无色码中文字幕| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 夜夜爽天天搞| 久久 成人 亚洲| 久久久国产欧美日韩av| 两人在一起打扑克的视频| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 精品电影一区二区在线| 黄色视频不卡| 两性夫妻黄色片| 成年免费大片在线观看| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 亚洲,欧美精品.| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 99re在线观看精品视频| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 黄色片一级片一级黄色片| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 真人做人爱边吃奶动态| 岛国视频午夜一区免费看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 久久久久久大精品| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 亚洲午夜精品一区,二区,三区| avwww免费| 亚洲五月天丁香| √禁漫天堂资源中文www| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区 | 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽| 日韩欧美一区二区三区在线观看| 国产成人av教育| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区黑人| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 亚洲精品中文字幕在线视频| 国产一区在线观看成人免费| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 免费在线观看日本一区| 精品久久久久久,| 国产高清有码在线观看视频 | 国产亚洲精品久久久久久毛片| 欧美激情极品国产一区二区三区| 国产单亲对白刺激| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 亚洲国产欧洲综合997久久, | 午夜免费鲁丝| 亚洲国产欧美日韩在线播放| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 9191精品国产免费久久| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 午夜老司机福利片| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 免费高清视频大片| 久久香蕉激情| 日本成人三级电影网站| 嫩草影院精品99| 成年女人毛片免费观看观看9| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| av在线天堂中文字幕| 窝窝影院91人妻| 亚洲片人在线观看| 法律面前人人平等表现在哪些方面| 国产爱豆传媒在线观看 | 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 国产欧美日韩精品亚洲av| 成人国语在线视频| 国产久久久一区二区三区| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 老司机靠b影院| 国产成人影院久久av| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 国产亚洲欧美在线一区二区| 色综合婷婷激情| 天堂动漫精品| 日韩欧美在线二视频| 99国产极品粉嫩在线观看| 啪啪无遮挡十八禁网站| 亚洲国产欧美网| 国产91精品成人一区二区三区| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 黄色 视频免费看| 亚洲成人久久爱视频| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三 |