Dialogue 2

　　W: Do I understand that All Marine Risks means less than All Risks?

　　J: The English understand by marine risks?only risks incident to transport by sea, such as collision, stranding, fire, pen e tra tion of sea water into the holds of the ships, etc. In other words, under ?all marine risks? recoverable loss will only be con fined to those arising from perils of the sea and maritime accidents only. The all risks?coverage will admit all losses occurring at any time throughout the whole currency of the coverage, irrespective of whether they are caused by accidents at sea or on land. In this sense, all marine risks provides a more limited cover than all risks?

　　W: I see. Another thing I don’t understand at this moment is the advantage of W.P.A. coverage. I thought that the W.P.A. insurance should cover all principal risks while, according to what you say, it means very little. It seems to be a phrase without much substance. Then what is the difference between W.P.A. and F.P.A.?

　　-- 那么，“一切海洋运输货物险”是否意味着比“一切险”范围狭一些呢?

　　-- 英国人对“海洋运输货物险”只理解为海运中的意外风险，诸如 船舶碰撞、搁浅、起火、海水侵入船舱等。换句话说，投保“一 切海洋运输货物险”，其损失的赔偿只限于因海上灾难和海运意外事故所引起的损失。而保“一切险”，在全部承保期内的任何时期，不论海上或陆上所产生的意外事故，其全部损失都予以赔偿。在 这个意义上，“一切海洋运输货物险”比“一切险”所承保的责任 范围更为有限。

　　-- 我懂了。另外一件事我现在还不明白的是，保“水渍险”有什么 好处。 我原以为“水渍险”应包括全部主要风险，而根据你所说 的，它的承保责任却是很少。徒有其名，而没有本质意义。那么，“水渍险”与“平安险”有什么区别呢?

　　J: This is a question that is very often overlooked, Mrs. Wang. It is a very common but mistaken idea that a merchant has done everything that is required to protect him against loss es when he has taken out W.P.A. insurance. There is, perhaps, no mistake more det ri men tal to his interests.

　　W: That interests me very much. I must confess that I was under the impression that W.P.A. insurance was quite sufficient and that losses due to breakage were covered. I know that F.P.A. insur- ance does not cover losses on consumer goods, but I did think that the W.P.A. in sur ance covered more risks than the F.P.A.

　　J: Actually it is like this. There is some difference between W.P.A. and F.P.A. The F.P.A. clause does not cover par tial loss of the nature of particular average, whereas the W.P.A. claus es cover such losses when they exceed a prearranged percentage. This is the only dif fer ence between W.P.A. and F.P.A. Otherwise, the protection under the F.P.A. clause will be al most identical with that of fered by the W.P.A. clause, because in the event of mari- time ac ci dents en coun tered in transit, such as stranding, fire, explosion or collision, both clauses will cov er particular average losses in full.

　　-- 王小姐，这是一个经常被人忽略的问题。这是个很普通却又是个 很错误的想法，那就是商人投保了“水渍险”，便以为足以保障其 利益不受损失。恐怕没别的错误比这个更有损他自己的利益的了。

　　-- 很有意思。我得承认，以往我总认为投保了“水渍险”就够了; 而且以为破碎引起的种种损失也包括在内。我知道“平安险”并 不包括消费品的种种损失，但我确实以 为“水渍险”比“平安 险”承保的范围更大。

　　-- 确实是这样。“水渍险”与“平安险”是有些不同。“平安险”条款 不包括单独海损性质的部分损失，而“水渍险”条款当超过事先

　　商定的百分比时，则包括此类损失。这是“水渍险”与“平安险”唯一不同之处。除此之外，“平安险”条款所承保的责任与 “水渍险”条款所承保的责任差不多相同。因为万一在运输途中遭遇海上意外事故，诸如搁浅、着火、爆炸或碰撞，这两种条款都全部赔偿单独海损的损失。

　　W: I don’t mean to annoy you, Mr. Jordan, but I don’t quite grasp this. Couldn’t you say it in simpler terms?

　　J: I’ll try. Neither the W.P.A. nor the F.P.A. mentions the risks covered or the risks excluded. The extent of in sur ance is stipulated in the basic policy form and in the various risks clauses. Look at the in sur ance certificates 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. F.P.A. stands for free of Particular Average?while W. P. A. or W.A. stands for With Particular Average?

　　W: Mr. Jordan, I must say that you have corrected my ideas about the insurance. I see now that this is far more complicated than I had imagined.

　　B: 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.

　　-- 乔丹先生，我并不想让你生气，但是我还是不太懂。你能否说得 简单一点?

　　-- 我试试看。无论“水渍险”还是“平安险”都不注明包括哪些险别 或者不包括哪些险别。 保险范围是写在基本保险单内和各种险别条 款里。你看保险凭证就会发现偷窃险、淡水险、油渍险、油污险、 钩损险、破碎险、渗漏险、沾污险、变质险等都特加注明，并且必 须特别申保。这些就是特别险。F.P.A.代表Free from Particular

　　Average(平安险)，而W.P.A.或W.A.代表 With Particular Average (水渍险)。

　　-- 乔丹先生，我得说，你已经改正了我对保险的想法。我现在才明 白，这比我以前想象的要复杂多了。

　　-- 现在我才知道，你为什么经常向我们指出，你对某些信用证的措辞 感到不愉快。 但现在我们该怎么办呢?我们一定要遵守合约和信用 证的规定。

　　W: The blame does not only rest with the letter of credit. For an item like ceramics, I think the Light Industrial Products Corporation should have understood from our letter of cred it that we want ed to cover all the risks, including the risk of breakage. I must say the error was on both sides and I think the loss ought to be shar- ed by both parties, let us say half and half.

　　B: Our price calculation could hardly admit that. Besides, we act ed upon your instructions, so it is not our fault. But in view of our good relationship, we’ll supply you with a favorable offer to com- pensate some of your losses.

　　J: (rising) I sincerely hope that you will settle the matter to your mutual satisfaction.

　　W: It goes without saying that both parties must abide by the con- tract terms that we have agreed upon and signed. This blunder, which is due to my ignorance, has cost me a pret ty penny.

　　B: We also have learned a lesson from this.

　　W: Well, to compensate a part of the loss, as you suggested, may I ask you to make us a firm offer for 50,000 glazed wall tiles C.I.F. Manila including the risk of breakage, November shipment?

　　B: We’ll make you an offer tomorrow. Come and see us at 9 a.m.

　　W: Thank you. Tomorrow at 9 then.

　　-- 问题不只是信用证。对于陶瓷器来说，我想轻工业品公司应从我 们的信用证中领会到我们要保的是“一切险”，包括破碎险在内。 所以我得说双方都有错误，我认为损失应由双方承担，我们就对半 负担吧。

　　-- 我们的计价不容许这么做。此外，我们是根据你们的要求办理的， 所以这不是我们的过错。但鉴于我们之间的良好关系，我们准备给 你提供一个优惠报盘，借以补偿你方的一些损失。

　　-- (站起身来)我衷心希望，你们将这件事情解决至双方都满意。

　　-- 不用说，双方都必须遵守已经同意并已签署过的合约条款。这次疏 忽是由于我的无知，使我损失了不少钱。

　　-- 我们也从这件事吸取了教训。

　　-- 如你所说，为了赔偿一部分损失，可否请你们报给我们一个实盘： 五万块釉面瓷砖包括破碎险在内、马尼拉到岸价，11月份装船?

　　-- 我们明天报价给你，请在上午九点来吧。

　　-- 谢谢，那么明天九点再见。