无单放货的责任归属与例外研究
|
摘要
随着海运的发展,提单作为一种海运单据应运而生,成为收货人向承运人提货所必不可少的凭证。根据我国《海商法》以及国际公约等的规定,承运人必须凭正本提单交货。然而,在实践中,承运人常常凭保函和提单副本放货,这就使得无单放货纠纷案件大量出现。无单放货行为的责任归属问题也成为案件当事人争议的焦点、理论界的研究热点、司法界的难点。因为对无单放货行为责任的定性不同会直接关系到当事人权利义务的确定以及不同的诉讼结果。因此,对无单放货的责任归属与例外研究也显得尤为重要。
该篇论文首先从无单放货的法律性质出发,明确了无单放货的违法性及认定的依据,接着以法律解释方法中的文义解释方法、体系解释方法等多种解释方法探讨了提单的法律属性,得出提单兼具物权效力与债权效力。其次,采用比较分析与归纳分析相结合的方法对承运人无单放货的责任归属的四种理论学说——侵权责任说、违约责任说、例外侵权责任说和侵权违约责任竞合说进行了评价,并由此提出笔者所倾向的学说——侵权违约责任竞合说。接着探讨了在不同相关人下,无单放货责任归属的不同认定。并在从实体和程序上两方面比较了侵权之诉和违约之诉之不同后,引出笔者对违约之诉的偏好,提出对于完善国内相关立法的建议。这也是该论文的核心与创新之处。最后,从航运实践中可允许的几种无单放货责任归属的例外情形以及对大量存在的保函的态度等问题出发,采用实证与规范相结合的方法,来论述各种学说的优缺点,对无单放货的责任归属与例外问题加以梳理,对保函的不同态度尝试性地提出质疑,并找出最适合我国的解决途径。并对当前各个法系对记名提单下无单放货责任是否免除的不同观点中,采用体系解释方法提出自己的观点:记名提单下承运人也须凭正本提单交付货物。
Along with the development of the marine transportation, as one kind of marine document, the bill of lading (B/L) becomes the essential certificate for the carrier to deliver goods to consignee. According to our country’s“Maritime Law”, as well as the international convention, the carrier must deliver the goods depending on the original B/L. However, in reality, the carrier sells goods depending on the letter of guarantee and the transcription of the B/L frequently and this has caused massive disputes. The carrier’s responsibility ownership which delivers goods without the original B/L becomes the focus between the parties, a hot topic among theorists, a difficulty in the judicial field. Therefore, there’s some need to do some research on the topic.
At first, on the basis of the legal nature of delivering goods without B/L, the illegality of delivering goods without B/L is definite. Then, the article discusses the legal nature of B/L by the method of the meaning explanation, system explanation etc. and concludes that B/L can be regarded both as credit document and document of title. Secondly, the author appraises the four different viewpoints of the carrier’s responsibility ownership (that is, the right infringement responsibility said, the violation responsibility said, the exception right infringement responsibility said, the right infringement and violation responsibility gathers said) by the method of contrastive analysis and inductive analysis. After evaluating the four viewpoints, the author proposed one of the viewpoints which she favors, that is, the right infringement and violation responsibility gathers said. Then the article discusses the different reorganizations of responsibilities under the different employees, and after comparing the violation sues with the right infringement sues from the different angles in the substantive law and procedural law, the author draws out the conclusion that she accepts the violation sues. In this part, some legislation suggestion is also proposed by the author. This part is the core of the whole thesis, also, in this part, several new viewpoints are proposed. At last, several kinds of exception on delivering goods without the B/L which are accepted in the navigation practice are discussed. Afterwards, the author analyzes the advantages and the disadvantages of the letter of guarantee, as well as the viewpoints to the responsibility of delivering goods without registered B/L in different nations using experimentation method and regulation method. Finally, by the method of system explanation, the author puts forward her own point that is the carrier has to deliver the goods with the original registered B/L.
该篇论文首先从无单放货的法律性质出发,明确了无单放货的违法性及认定的依据,接着以法律解释方法中的文义解释方法、体系解释方法等多种解释方法探讨了提单的法律属性,得出提单兼具物权效力与债权效力。其次,采用比较分析与归纳分析相结合的方法对承运人无单放货的责任归属的四种理论学说——侵权责任说、违约责任说、例外侵权责任说和侵权违约责任竞合说进行了评价,并由此提出笔者所倾向的学说——侵权违约责任竞合说。接着探讨了在不同相关人下,无单放货责任归属的不同认定。并在从实体和程序上两方面比较了侵权之诉和违约之诉之不同后,引出笔者对违约之诉的偏好,提出对于完善国内相关立法的建议。这也是该论文的核心与创新之处。最后,从航运实践中可允许的几种无单放货责任归属的例外情形以及对大量存在的保函的态度等问题出发,采用实证与规范相结合的方法,来论述各种学说的优缺点,对无单放货的责任归属与例外问题加以梳理,对保函的不同态度尝试性地提出质疑,并找出最适合我国的解决途径。并对当前各个法系对记名提单下无单放货责任是否免除的不同观点中,采用体系解释方法提出自己的观点:记名提单下承运人也须凭正本提单交付货物。
Along with the development of the marine transportation, as one kind of marine document, the bill of lading (B/L) becomes the essential certificate for the carrier to deliver goods to consignee. According to our country’s“Maritime Law”, as well as the international convention, the carrier must deliver the goods depending on the original B/L. However, in reality, the carrier sells goods depending on the letter of guarantee and the transcription of the B/L frequently and this has caused massive disputes. The carrier’s responsibility ownership which delivers goods without the original B/L becomes the focus between the parties, a hot topic among theorists, a difficulty in the judicial field. Therefore, there’s some need to do some research on the topic.
At first, on the basis of the legal nature of delivering goods without B/L, the illegality of delivering goods without B/L is definite. Then, the article discusses the legal nature of B/L by the method of the meaning explanation, system explanation etc. and concludes that B/L can be regarded both as credit document and document of title. Secondly, the author appraises the four different viewpoints of the carrier’s responsibility ownership (that is, the right infringement responsibility said, the violation responsibility said, the exception right infringement responsibility said, the right infringement and violation responsibility gathers said) by the method of contrastive analysis and inductive analysis. After evaluating the four viewpoints, the author proposed one of the viewpoints which she favors, that is, the right infringement and violation responsibility gathers said. Then the article discusses the different reorganizations of responsibilities under the different employees, and after comparing the violation sues with the right infringement sues from the different angles in the substantive law and procedural law, the author draws out the conclusion that she accepts the violation sues. In this part, some legislation suggestion is also proposed by the author. This part is the core of the whole thesis, also, in this part, several new viewpoints are proposed. At last, several kinds of exception on delivering goods without the B/L which are accepted in the navigation practice are discussed. Afterwards, the author analyzes the advantages and the disadvantages of the letter of guarantee, as well as the viewpoints to the responsibility of delivering goods without registered B/L in different nations using experimentation method and regulation method. Finally, by the method of system explanation, the author puts forward her own point that is the carrier has to deliver the goods with the original registered B/L.
引文
①邹岿.承运人无单放货的法律问题研究[EB/OL].http://dlib.cnki.net/kns50/detail.aspx?filename=2005122466.nh&dbname=CMFD2006:2008 年 4 月 2 日.
①张丽英.海商法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1998 年:82—83.
②胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:56.
③The expression of “document of title” shall include any bill of lading, dock warrant, warehouse—keeper’s certificate, and warrant or order for the delivery of goods, and any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession or control of goods, or authorizing or purporting to authorize, either by endorsement or by delivery the possessor of the document to transfer or receive goods there by represented.
④Bryan Garner.Black’s Law Dictionary[M].New York:West Group,1891:25.
⑤“ Document of title” including bill of lading and also any other document which …is treated as adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers.
①It means a document relating to goods the transfer of which operates as a transfer of the constructive possession of the goods ,and may operate to transfer the property in them.
②The bill merely “represents” the goods and possession of the bill of lading is treated as equivalent to possession of the goodcovered by it ——no more, no less.
③夏斗寅.海商法基础[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:74.
④司玉琢.新编海商法学[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1991 年:151.
⑤冯大同.国际货物买卖法[M].北京:对外贸易出版社,1993 年:32.
⑥韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:23-24.
⑦吴焕宁.海商法教程[M].北京:法律出版社, 1996 年:59.
⑧姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:28.
①胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:75.
②赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:8-9.
①姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:24.
②纪荣泰.国际货物运输与保险法研究[M].天津:天津科技翻译出版公司,2000 年:10.
①傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:142-143.
②韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:33-34.
①韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:35.
②司玉琢,汪杰,祝默泉,等.关于无单放货的理论与实践——兼论提单的物权性问题[J].中国海商法年刊,2000 年:26-27.
③王利明.民法[D].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000 年:540.
①王利明.民法[D].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000 年:545.
①郭瑜.提单法律制度研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997 年:53.
②杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:15.
①赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:12-13.
①司玉琢.海商法专题研究[M].大连:大连海事大学出版社,2002 年:252.
①赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:13-14.
①何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
②尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000 年: 66.
③何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
④袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛,中国海洋大学,2006 年:13-18.
①全国人大法工委研究室编写组.中华人民共和国合同法释义[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1999 年:55.
②王利明.违约责任论[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002 年:73.
③郑蕾.现代国际海上货物运输承运人责任制度研究[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛第 IV 卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2005年:657.
①刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:15-18.
②袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:17-18.
①叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海:上海海事大学,2006 年:27-29.
②邢海宝.海商提单法[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:95.
①祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年:99.
②张丽英.海商法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004 年:66.
①王利民,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1996 年:61.
②雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:124.
③邢海宝.海商提单法[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:565.
④马俊驹,余延满.民法原论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:377.
⑤杨立新.合同法总则[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:23.
①刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:19-20.
② 依据是《海商法》“ 前款诉讼是对承运人的受雇人或者代理人提起的,经承运人的受雇人或者代理人证明,其行为是在受雇或者受委托范围之内的,适用前款规定。”
①叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海:上海海事大学,2006 年:30.
②祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年第 4 期:97.
①李守芹.海运提单焦点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:44.
①丹宁勋爵.法律的训诫[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:55.
②《国际海上货物运输公约草案》第 46 条、第 49(a)条以及第 60 条第 2 款.
③郭国汀.记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:10-12.
①It is not a symbol of the goods because the carrier is entitled and bound to deliver the goods to the named consignee without production of the bill.
②For under a straight bill the carrier is entitled and bound to deliver the goods to the originally named consignee without production of the bill.
①It will resemble a sea waybill, apart from the fact that a sea waybill will not normally be presented to the ship to obtain delivery…"straight" bills of lading and sea waybills are much the same type of document save that the sea waybill is not required to obtain delivery.
②The one way in which a straight bill of lading differs from an ordinary sea waybill is that, being on a bill of lading form, it usually contains words, such as "one of which being accomplished the others to be void", which indicate that it is to be surrendered on delivery. It is an open question whether the carrier under a straight bill is entitled or obliged to deliver to the named consignee without production of the bill or whether, as in the case of a transferable bill, he should only deliver on its presentation.
③初北平.论记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:92.
④王小晖.无单放货法律责任的例外情形[J].河南社会科学,2005 年第 13 卷:36.
①Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [M].London:Lloyd Press,2003:139.
②The Court of Appeal of Renne considered that the bills, albeit "nominative and non negotiable", were bills of lading and documents of title for all that, and obliged delivery against and only against their production.
③Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [M].London:Lloyd Press,2003:136.
④贾浩.对关于记名提单的不同判例的探究[EB/OL].中国涉外商事海事审判网:2003 年 3 月 6 日.
①韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:49-50.
②傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:143.
③於世成,杨召南,汪淮江.海商法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997 年:115-120.
④杨良宜.信用证[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998 年:158.
⑤雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:143.
①杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:17.
②王伟.论无单放货保函的相对有效性[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:1.
①广州海事法院.海事审判实务[M].广州:海天出版社,1992 年:56-57.
[1]Bryan Garner.Black’s Law Dictionary[M].New York:West Group,1891:25.
[2]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,2003:114-274.
[3]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,1994:110-136.
[4]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,1959:136-139.
[5]Miss Rosuta Lau.Internet Bill of Lading—Several Points to Bear in Mind[J].CML-V Shanghai,2002(10):338.
[6]Regina Asariotis.Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Sea and Conflict of Laws[J].Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1995(2):297.
[7]Clive M. Schmitthoff, R. M..Goods. International Carriage of Goods[J].Commercial Law Studies,1988(3):2-3.
[8]Carver.Carver's Carriage by Sea[J].13th edition.London: Stevens &Sons Ltd.,1982:63-64.
[9]Miss Rosuta Lau.Internet Bill of Lading—Several Points to Bear in Mind[J].Shanghai :CML-V,2002(10):338.
[10]Michael D.Bill of lading -A Document of Title to Goods[J].Books LLP,1997:160-161.
[11]丹宁勋爵.杨百揆译.法律的训诫[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:55.
[12]张丽英.海商法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004 年:66-83.
[13]於世成,杨召南,汪淮江.海商法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997 年:115-120.
[14]何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
[15]尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000 年:66.
[16]夏斗寅.海商法基础[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:74.
[17]司玉琢.新编海商法学[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1991 年:151.
[18]冯大同.国际货物买卖法[M].北京:对外贸易出版社,1993 年:32.
[19]吴焕宁.海商法教程[M].北京:法律出版社,1996 年:59.
[20]纪荣泰.国际货物运输与保险法研究[M].天津:天津科技翻译出版公司,2000 年:10.
[21]司玉琢.海商法专题研究[M].大连:大连海事大学出版社,2002 年:252.
[22]傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:142-143.
[23]郭瑜.提单法律制度研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997 年:53.
[24]全国人大法工委研究室编写组.中华人民共和国合同法释义[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1999 年:55.
[25]王利明.违约责任论[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002 年:73.
[26]姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:24-28.
[27]王伟.论无单放货保函的相对有效性[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:1.
[28]胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:56-75.
[29]祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年:97-99.
[30]曲建忠.海运单与电放提单[J].对外经贸实务,2001 年:397.
[31]雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:124-143.
[32]王小晖.无单放货法律责任的例外情形[J].河南社会科学,2005 年第 13 卷:36.
[33]李守芹.海运提单焦点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲[J].海商法研究,2001 年第4 辑:44.
[34]郭国汀.记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:10-12.
[35]初北平.论记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:92.
[36]司玉琢,汪杰,祝默泉,等.关于无单放货的理论与实践——兼论提单的物权性问题[J].中国海商法年刊,2000 年:26-27.
[37]杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:15-17.
[38]迟君德.无单放货的法律性质[J].当代法学,2003 年第 9 期:27-28.
[39]王秀英,李康宁.无单放货及其法律责任的承担[J].当代法学,2002 年第 11 期:37-39.
[40]邓丽娟,汪大荣.关于记名提单下承运人无单放货责任的思考[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:271.
[41]郑少霖.论无单放货的法律性质[J].江南大学学报,2003 年第 4 期:29.
[42]郑蕾.现代国际海上货物运输承运人责任制度研究[A].梁慧星.《民商法论丛》第 IV卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2005 年:657.
[43]袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛,中国海洋大学,2006 年:13-18.
[44]韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:23-50.
[45]刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:15-20.
[46]叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:27-30.
[47]严凌振.无单放货之研究[D].上海,上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002:3.
[48]张杰.论无单放货的若干法律问题研究[D].上海,上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002:7.
[49]赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:8-14.
[50]贾浩.对关于记名提单的不同判例的探究[EB/OL].中国涉外商事海事审判网:2003年 3 月 6 日.
①张丽英.海商法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1998 年:82—83.
②胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:56.
③The expression of “document of title” shall include any bill of lading, dock warrant, warehouse—keeper’s certificate, and warrant or order for the delivery of goods, and any other document used in the ordinary course of business as proof of possession or control of goods, or authorizing or purporting to authorize, either by endorsement or by delivery the possessor of the document to transfer or receive goods there by represented.
④Bryan Garner.Black’s Law Dictionary[M].New York:West Group,1891:25.
⑤“ Document of title” including bill of lading and also any other document which …is treated as adequately evidencing that the person in possession of it is entitled to receive, hold and dispose of the document and the goods it covers.
①It means a document relating to goods the transfer of which operates as a transfer of the constructive possession of the goods ,and may operate to transfer the property in them.
②The bill merely “represents” the goods and possession of the bill of lading is treated as equivalent to possession of the goodcovered by it ——no more, no less.
③夏斗寅.海商法基础[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:74.
④司玉琢.新编海商法学[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1991 年:151.
⑤冯大同.国际货物买卖法[M].北京:对外贸易出版社,1993 年:32.
⑥韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:23-24.
⑦吴焕宁.海商法教程[M].北京:法律出版社, 1996 年:59.
⑧姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:28.
①胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:75.
②赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:8-9.
①姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:24.
②纪荣泰.国际货物运输与保险法研究[M].天津:天津科技翻译出版公司,2000 年:10.
①傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:142-143.
②韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:33-34.
①韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:35.
②司玉琢,汪杰,祝默泉,等.关于无单放货的理论与实践——兼论提单的物权性问题[J].中国海商法年刊,2000 年:26-27.
③王利明.民法[D].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000 年:540.
①王利明.民法[D].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000 年:545.
①郭瑜.提单法律制度研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997 年:53.
②杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:15.
①赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:12-13.
①司玉琢.海商法专题研究[M].大连:大连海事大学出版社,2002 年:252.
①赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:13-14.
①何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
②尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000 年: 66.
③何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
④袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛,中国海洋大学,2006 年:13-18.
①全国人大法工委研究室编写组.中华人民共和国合同法释义[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1999 年:55.
②王利明.违约责任论[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002 年:73.
③郑蕾.现代国际海上货物运输承运人责任制度研究[A].梁慧星.民商法论丛第 IV 卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2005年:657.
①刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:15-18.
②袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:17-18.
①叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海:上海海事大学,2006 年:27-29.
②邢海宝.海商提单法[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:95.
①祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年:99.
②张丽英.海商法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004 年:66.
①王利民,杨立新.侵权行为法[M].北京:法律出版社,1996 年:61.
②雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:124.
③邢海宝.海商提单法[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:565.
④马俊驹,余延满.民法原论[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:377.
⑤杨立新.合同法总则[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:23.
①刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:19-20.
② 依据是《海商法》“ 前款诉讼是对承运人的受雇人或者代理人提起的,经承运人的受雇人或者代理人证明,其行为是在受雇或者受委托范围之内的,适用前款规定。”
①叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海:上海海事大学,2006 年:30.
②祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年第 4 期:97.
①李守芹.海运提单焦点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:44.
①丹宁勋爵.法律的训诫[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:55.
②《国际海上货物运输公约草案》第 46 条、第 49(a)条以及第 60 条第 2 款.
③郭国汀.记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:10-12.
①It is not a symbol of the goods because the carrier is entitled and bound to deliver the goods to the named consignee without production of the bill.
②For under a straight bill the carrier is entitled and bound to deliver the goods to the originally named consignee without production of the bill.
①It will resemble a sea waybill, apart from the fact that a sea waybill will not normally be presented to the ship to obtain delivery…"straight" bills of lading and sea waybills are much the same type of document save that the sea waybill is not required to obtain delivery.
②The one way in which a straight bill of lading differs from an ordinary sea waybill is that, being on a bill of lading form, it usually contains words, such as "one of which being accomplished the others to be void", which indicate that it is to be surrendered on delivery. It is an open question whether the carrier under a straight bill is entitled or obliged to deliver to the named consignee without production of the bill or whether, as in the case of a transferable bill, he should only deliver on its presentation.
③初北平.论记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:92.
④王小晖.无单放货法律责任的例外情形[J].河南社会科学,2005 年第 13 卷:36.
①Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [M].London:Lloyd Press,2003:139.
②The Court of Appeal of Renne considered that the bills, albeit "nominative and non negotiable", were bills of lading and documents of title for all that, and obliged delivery against and only against their production.
③Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [M].London:Lloyd Press,2003:136.
④贾浩.对关于记名提单的不同判例的探究[EB/OL].中国涉外商事海事审判网:2003 年 3 月 6 日.
①韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:49-50.
②傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:143.
③於世成,杨召南,汪淮江.海商法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997 年:115-120.
④杨良宜.信用证[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998 年:158.
⑤雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:143.
①杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:17.
②王伟.论无单放货保函的相对有效性[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:1.
①广州海事法院.海事审判实务[M].广州:海天出版社,1992 年:56-57.
[1]Bryan Garner.Black’s Law Dictionary[M].New York:West Group,1891:25.
[2]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,2003:114-274.
[3]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,1994:110-136.
[4]Lloyd.Lloyd's Law Reports Vo1.2 [J].London:Lloyd Press,1959:136-139.
[5]Miss Rosuta Lau.Internet Bill of Lading—Several Points to Bear in Mind[J].CML-V Shanghai,2002(10):338.
[6]Regina Asariotis.Contract for the Carriage of Goods by Sea and Conflict of Laws[J].Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1995(2):297.
[7]Clive M. Schmitthoff, R. M..Goods. International Carriage of Goods[J].Commercial Law Studies,1988(3):2-3.
[8]Carver.Carver's Carriage by Sea[J].13th edition.London: Stevens &Sons Ltd.,1982:63-64.
[9]Miss Rosuta Lau.Internet Bill of Lading—Several Points to Bear in Mind[J].Shanghai :CML-V,2002(10):338.
[10]Michael D.Bill of lading -A Document of Title to Goods[J].Books LLP,1997:160-161.
[11]丹宁勋爵.杨百揆译.法律的训诫[M].北京:法律出版社,1999 年:55.
[12]张丽英.海商法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004 年:66-83.
[13]於世成,杨召南,汪淮江.海商法[M].北京:法律出版社,1997 年:115-120.
[14]何丽新,吴海燕.海商法案例精解[M].厦门:厦门大学出版社,2004 年:53.
[15]尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法[M].北京:人民法院出版社,2000 年:66.
[16]夏斗寅.海商法基础[M].北京:法律出版社,1998 年:74.
[17]司玉琢.新编海商法学[M].北京:人民交通出版社,1991 年:151.
[18]冯大同.国际货物买卖法[M].北京:对外贸易出版社,1993 年:32.
[19]吴焕宁.海商法教程[M].北京:法律出版社,1996 年:59.
[20]纪荣泰.国际货物运输与保险法研究[M].天津:天津科技翻译出版公司,2000 年:10.
[21]司玉琢.海商法专题研究[M].大连:大连海事大学出版社,2002 年:252.
[22]傅旭梅.中华人民共和国海商法诠释[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1995 年:142-143.
[23]郭瑜.提单法律制度研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,1997 年:53.
[24]全国人大法工委研究室编写组.中华人民共和国合同法释义[M].北京:人民法院出版社,1999 年:55.
[25]王利明.违约责任论[M].修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2002 年:73.
[26]姚洪秀,王千华.浅论海运提单所证明的权利属性[J].中国海商法年刊,1997 年:24-28.
[27]王伟.论无单放货保函的相对有效性[J].海商法研究,2001 年第 4 辑:1.
[28]胡正良,曹冲.对提单物权凭证功能的再思考[J].中国海商法年刊,1996 年:56-75.
[29]祝默泉.提单及货物交付[J].中国海商法年刊,1993 年:97-99.
[30]曲建忠.海运单与电放提单[J].对外经贸实务,2001 年:397.
[31]雷霆.无正本提单放货的性质及其法律责任[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:124-143.
[32]王小晖.无单放货法律责任的例外情形[J].河南社会科学,2005 年第 13 卷:36.
[33]李守芹.海运提单焦点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲[J].海商法研究,2001 年第4 辑:44.
[34]郭国汀.记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:10-12.
[35]初北平.论记名提单下的无单放货[J].中国海商法年刊,2003 年第 1 期:92.
[36]司玉琢,汪杰,祝默泉,等.关于无单放货的理论与实践——兼论提单的物权性问题[J].中国海商法年刊,2000 年:26-27.
[37]杨良宜.无提单交货[J].中国海商法年刊,1994 年第 3 期:15-17.
[38]迟君德.无单放货的法律性质[J].当代法学,2003 年第 9 期:27-28.
[39]王秀英,李康宁.无单放货及其法律责任的承担[J].当代法学,2002 年第 11 期:37-39.
[40]邓丽娟,汪大荣.关于记名提单下承运人无单放货责任的思考[J].中国海事审判年刊,2004 年:271.
[41]郑少霖.论无单放货的法律性质[J].江南大学学报,2003 年第 4 期:29.
[42]郑蕾.现代国际海上货物运输承运人责任制度研究[A].梁慧星.《民商法论丛》第 IV卷[C].北京:法律出版社,2005 年:657.
[43]袁斌.对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究[D].青岛,中国海洋大学,2006 年:13-18.
[44]韩顶峰.承运人无单放货法律责任研究[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:23-50.
[45]刘秀慧.关于无单放货问题的辨析研究[D].青岛:中国海洋大学,2006 年:15-20.
[46]叶群玲.承运人的交货责任[D].上海,上海海事大学,2006 年:27-30.
[47]严凌振.无单放货之研究[D].上海,上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002:3.
[48]张杰.论无单放货的若干法律问题研究[D].上海,上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002:7.
[49]赵宏艳.无单放货的责任归属与例外[D].大连,大连海事大学,2006 年:8-14.
[50]贾浩.对关于记名提单的不同判例的探究[EB/OL].中国涉外商事海事审判网:2003年 3 月 6 日.