国际海运中无单放货的法律问题研究
|
摘要
目前理论界和实务界对无单放货法律涵义的认识普遍较模糊,无单放货的研究成果主要集中于其法律性质及法律责任等问题,而且多是通过分析提单的法律性质来界定无单放货的法律性质,少有著述从法律事实角度和平衡当事人利益的角度对无单放货进行研究,并提出建立无单放货的救济机制与预防机制的构想。显然,本文对这些问题的研究,不仅是对过去研究成果的总结,更是对建立和完善无单放货的救济机制与预防机制的超前探索。
无单放货,指在海上货物运输中,负有凭单交货义务之人未收回或注销正本提单而交付该提单项下货物的非表示行为。无单放货属于违约性侵权行为,承运人应承担违约责任或侵权责任。
无单放货法律责任有四个构成条件:承运人主观上有过错(违约责任下不需此条件)、承运人实施无单放货、持单人受有损失、无单放货与损失之间有因果关系。无单放货最常见的责任形式是赔偿损失,赔偿范围以持单人的损失为限。为维护公平与正义,承运人应享有禁止反言、提单载明无单放货条款、目的港法律或惯例规定无单放货等免责事由。
在无单放货诉讼中,选择不同的诉因会导致完全不同的结果,持单人应慎重选择诉因。提单管辖权条款的效力取决于受诉法院的态度,受诉法院应在不损害法院地国主权的前提下做出理性决定。从法律规定和公平角度而言,无单放货的诉讼时效应为一年。在证明无单放货这一法律事实时,应由承运人承担举证责任。
提单流转滞后是无单放货的表层原因,其深层原因在于:法律未明确承运人解除凭单交货义务的途径以致其利益失衡。要从根本上防止无单放货,需要通过国际立法和国内立法来建立预防机制。就国际立法而言,《海上货物运输法公约(草案)》已进行了大胆尝试,尽管其可操作性尚不强;就国内立法而言,一方面要完善《海关法》、《海商法》的相关规定,另一方面要积极研究提单制度的嬗变与革新所提供的新鲜立法点。
With regard to the legal meaning of Delivery of Goods without Presentation of the Original Bills of Lading (hereinafter refers to as DGWOPOBL), both the academe and the practice circle have obscure understandings on it at present. Most of the studies focus on the legal nature and legal liability of DGWOPOBL, and normally they ascertain the legal nature of DGWOPOBL by analyzing the legal nature of bill of lading (hereinafter refers to as B/L). It is rarely to be studied on the aspects of factum juridicum and parties' interests balancing and thus to propose a relief mechanism and a preventive mechanism. Obviously, the study on these problems in this article is not only the summary of foregone researches, but also a leading exploration in setting up and perfecting the relief mechanism and the preventive mechanism.DGWOPOBL is a factual behavior refers to that the principal part, who has the obligation to deliver goods with presentation of the original B/L, delivers the goods without taking back or canceling the original B/L in ocean shipping. DGWOPOBL is a tort caused by breaking of contract and thus the carrier should bear the liability for breach of contract or the liability for tort.The liability to DGWOPOBL should meet four conditions: The carrier has subjective fault, which does not apply to the liability for breach of contract, the carrier delivers goods without taking back or canceling the original B/L, the holder of B/L suffers losses, and there is causality between DGWOPOBL and losses. Loss compensating is the most common form to take the legal liability of DGWOPOBL and the damages should be in line with losses of the holder of B/L. Considering the equity and justice, the liability to the carrier should be exempted for some causes, such as Equitable Estoppel, DGWOPOBL clause in B/L and laws or practices at a destination port.In the litigation on DGWOPOBL, the holder of B/L should choose the lawsuit causes cautiously since different causes lead to different results. The effectiveness of jurisdiction clause in B/L lies on the attitude of the court received the case, and the court should make the rational decision on the premise of not damaging its country's sovereignty. Considering the legal provisions and the principle of fair, the limitation of action should be one year. As for the proof on the fact of DGWOPOBL, the carrier should undertake the burden of proof.The superficial reason to DGWOPOBL is that the circulation of B/L lags behind
无单放货,指在海上货物运输中,负有凭单交货义务之人未收回或注销正本提单而交付该提单项下货物的非表示行为。无单放货属于违约性侵权行为,承运人应承担违约责任或侵权责任。
无单放货法律责任有四个构成条件:承运人主观上有过错(违约责任下不需此条件)、承运人实施无单放货、持单人受有损失、无单放货与损失之间有因果关系。无单放货最常见的责任形式是赔偿损失,赔偿范围以持单人的损失为限。为维护公平与正义,承运人应享有禁止反言、提单载明无单放货条款、目的港法律或惯例规定无单放货等免责事由。
在无单放货诉讼中,选择不同的诉因会导致完全不同的结果,持单人应慎重选择诉因。提单管辖权条款的效力取决于受诉法院的态度,受诉法院应在不损害法院地国主权的前提下做出理性决定。从法律规定和公平角度而言,无单放货的诉讼时效应为一年。在证明无单放货这一法律事实时,应由承运人承担举证责任。
提单流转滞后是无单放货的表层原因,其深层原因在于:法律未明确承运人解除凭单交货义务的途径以致其利益失衡。要从根本上防止无单放货,需要通过国际立法和国内立法来建立预防机制。就国际立法而言,《海上货物运输法公约(草案)》已进行了大胆尝试,尽管其可操作性尚不强;就国内立法而言,一方面要完善《海关法》、《海商法》的相关规定,另一方面要积极研究提单制度的嬗变与革新所提供的新鲜立法点。
With regard to the legal meaning of Delivery of Goods without Presentation of the Original Bills of Lading (hereinafter refers to as DGWOPOBL), both the academe and the practice circle have obscure understandings on it at present. Most of the studies focus on the legal nature and legal liability of DGWOPOBL, and normally they ascertain the legal nature of DGWOPOBL by analyzing the legal nature of bill of lading (hereinafter refers to as B/L). It is rarely to be studied on the aspects of factum juridicum and parties' interests balancing and thus to propose a relief mechanism and a preventive mechanism. Obviously, the study on these problems in this article is not only the summary of foregone researches, but also a leading exploration in setting up and perfecting the relief mechanism and the preventive mechanism.DGWOPOBL is a factual behavior refers to that the principal part, who has the obligation to deliver goods with presentation of the original B/L, delivers the goods without taking back or canceling the original B/L in ocean shipping. DGWOPOBL is a tort caused by breaking of contract and thus the carrier should bear the liability for breach of contract or the liability for tort.The liability to DGWOPOBL should meet four conditions: The carrier has subjective fault, which does not apply to the liability for breach of contract, the carrier delivers goods without taking back or canceling the original B/L, the holder of B/L suffers losses, and there is causality between DGWOPOBL and losses. Loss compensating is the most common form to take the legal liability of DGWOPOBL and the damages should be in line with losses of the holder of B/L. Considering the equity and justice, the liability to the carrier should be exempted for some causes, such as Equitable Estoppel, DGWOPOBL clause in B/L and laws or practices at a destination port.In the litigation on DGWOPOBL, the holder of B/L should choose the lawsuit causes cautiously since different causes lead to different results. The effectiveness of jurisdiction clause in B/L lies on the attitude of the court received the case, and the court should make the rational decision on the premise of not damaging its country's sovereignty. Considering the legal provisions and the principle of fair, the limitation of action should be one year. As for the proof on the fact of DGWOPOBL, the carrier should undertake the burden of proof.The superficial reason to DGWOPOBL is that the circulation of B/L lags behind
引文
[1] 吴焕宁.海商法学.第2版.北京:法律出版社,1996,1
[2] [德]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第四卷).第1版.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.北京:人民出版社,1975,92-93
[3] 祝默泉.提单及货物交付.中国海商法年刊,1993,(4):92
[4] 邢海宝.海商提单法.第1版.北京:法律出版社,1999,523
[5] 林源民.杨良宜论文集.第1版.大连:大连海事大学出版社,1995,233
[6] 李守芹.海运提单热点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲.载北京大学法学院海商法研究中心主办.海商法研究(第4辑).北京:法律出版社,2001,30-34
[7] 胡正良.海运提单项下的提货权与承运人无单放货责任的认定.大连海事大学学报(社科版),2003,(2):8
[8] 严凌振.无单放货之研究:[上海海运学院硕士学位论文].上海:上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002,3
[9] 张杰.论无单放货的若干法律问题研究:[上海海运学院硕士学位论文].上海:上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002,7
[10] 李步云.法理学.第1版.北京:经济科学出版社,2001,205
[11] 郑云瑞.民法总论.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,2004,83
[12] 刘定华,屈茂辉.民法学.第1版.长沙:湖南人民出版社,2001,67-68
[13] 中国律协海商海事业务委员会编.无单放货案例选编.第1版.北京:法律出版社,2001,1
[14] 迟君德.“无单放货”的法律性质.集装箱化,2003,(9):27-28
[15] 王秀英,李康宁.无单放货及其法律责任的承担.当代法学,2002,(11):37-39
[16] 陈安.国际海事法学.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,1999,287
[17] 杨威夷.提单若干法律问题研究.世界海运,1998,(1):22-23
[18] 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.中国海商法年刊,2000,(11):19-22
[19] Clive M. Schmitthoff, R. M. Goods. International Carriage of Goods, Commercial Law Studies, 1988, (3): 2-3
[20] 王利明,崔建远.合同法新论·总则.修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000,44
[21] Carver. Carver's Carriage by Sea. 13th edition. London: Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1982, 63-64.
[22] A.M. Tettenborn. Transferable and Negotiable Documents of Title-a redefinition?. Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1991, (1): 539
[23] 钱明星.物权法原理.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,1994,384
[24] Paul Todd. Modern Bills of Lading. 2nd edition. London: Collins Professional and Technical Books, 1990, 17
[25] Paul Todd. Bill of Lading and Bankers' Documentary Credits. 2nd Edition. London: Lloyd's of London Press, 1993, 88-89
[26] John F. Wilson. Carriage of Goods by Sea. 2nd Edition. London: Pitman Publishing, 1993, 144-146
[27] Boris Kozolchyk. Evolution and Present State of the Ocean Bill of Lading from a Banking Law Perspective. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1992, (2): 197
[28] 李开国,张玉敏.中国民法学.第1版.北京:法律出版社,2002,336,466-467
[29] Caslav Pejovic. Documents of Title in Carriage of Goods By Sea: Present Status and Possible Future Directions. Business Law, 2001, (9): 472
[30] 屈茂辉.中国合同法学.第1版.长沙:湖南大学出版社,2003,168
[31] 陈兴良.法条竞合论.第1版.上海:复旦大学出版社,1993,22
[32] 段厚省.请求权竞合与诉讼标的研究.第1版.长春:吉林人民出版社,2004,118-126
[33] 沈木珠.海商法比较研究.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998,40
[34] 尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法.第1版.北京:人民法院出版社,2000,73
[35] 王利明.侵权行为法归责原则研究.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992,31
[36] 李积洪.论司法实践中的海商法.载北京大学法学院海商法研究中心主办.海商法研究(第1辑).北京:法律出版社,1999,71
[37] 李洪.海事索赔责任限制制度浅议.海事审判,1993,(4):6
[38] [英]John F.Wilson.再评具单交货原则.黄永申译.中国海商法协会通讯,1997,(3):21
[39] 杨良宜.提单及其付运单证.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,124
[40] Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. 7th edition. New York: West Group, 1999, 570
[41] 金正佳.中国海事审判年刊1999.第1版.北京:人民交通出版社,1999,335-339
[42] 韦祖林.无单放货法律责任问题研究:[安徽大学硕士学位论文].合肥:安徽大学法学院,2003,14
[43] 杨良宜.无提单放货.中国海商法年刊,1994,(13):13
[2] [德]马克思,恩格斯.马克思恩格斯选集(第四卷).第1版.中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局编译.北京:人民出版社,1975,92-93
[3] 祝默泉.提单及货物交付.中国海商法年刊,1993,(4):92
[4] 邢海宝.海商提单法.第1版.北京:法律出版社,1999,523
[5] 林源民.杨良宜论文集.第1版.大连:大连海事大学出版社,1995,233
[6] 李守芹.海运提单热点问题透视——无单放货责任论纲.载北京大学法学院海商法研究中心主办.海商法研究(第4辑).北京:法律出版社,2001,30-34
[7] 胡正良.海运提单项下的提货权与承运人无单放货责任的认定.大连海事大学学报(社科版),2003,(2):8
[8] 严凌振.无单放货之研究:[上海海运学院硕士学位论文].上海:上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002,3
[9] 张杰.论无单放货的若干法律问题研究:[上海海运学院硕士学位论文].上海:上海海运学院交通运输学院,2002,7
[10] 李步云.法理学.第1版.北京:经济科学出版社,2001,205
[11] 郑云瑞.民法总论.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,2004,83
[12] 刘定华,屈茂辉.民法学.第1版.长沙:湖南人民出版社,2001,67-68
[13] 中国律协海商海事业务委员会编.无单放货案例选编.第1版.北京:法律出版社,2001,1
[14] 迟君德.“无单放货”的法律性质.集装箱化,2003,(9):27-28
[15] 王秀英,李康宁.无单放货及其法律责任的承担.当代法学,2002,(11):37-39
[16] 陈安.国际海事法学.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,1999,287
[17] 杨威夷.提单若干法律问题研究.世界海运,1998,(1):22-23
[18] 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.中国海商法年刊,2000,(11):19-22
[19] Clive M. Schmitthoff, R. M. Goods. International Carriage of Goods, Commercial Law Studies, 1988, (3): 2-3
[20] 王利明,崔建远.合同法新论·总则.修订版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000,44
[21] Carver. Carver's Carriage by Sea. 13th edition. London: Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1982, 63-64.
[22] A.M. Tettenborn. Transferable and Negotiable Documents of Title-a redefinition?. Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 1991, (1): 539
[23] 钱明星.物权法原理.第1版.北京:北京大学出版社,1994,384
[24] Paul Todd. Modern Bills of Lading. 2nd edition. London: Collins Professional and Technical Books, 1990, 17
[25] Paul Todd. Bill of Lading and Bankers' Documentary Credits. 2nd Edition. London: Lloyd's of London Press, 1993, 88-89
[26] John F. Wilson. Carriage of Goods by Sea. 2nd Edition. London: Pitman Publishing, 1993, 144-146
[27] Boris Kozolchyk. Evolution and Present State of the Ocean Bill of Lading from a Banking Law Perspective. Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce, 1992, (2): 197
[28] 李开国,张玉敏.中国民法学.第1版.北京:法律出版社,2002,336,466-467
[29] Caslav Pejovic. Documents of Title in Carriage of Goods By Sea: Present Status and Possible Future Directions. Business Law, 2001, (9): 472
[30] 屈茂辉.中国合同法学.第1版.长沙:湖南大学出版社,2003,168
[31] 陈兴良.法条竞合论.第1版.上海:复旦大学出版社,1993,22
[32] 段厚省.请求权竞合与诉讼标的研究.第1版.长春:吉林人民出版社,2004,118-126
[33] 沈木珠.海商法比较研究.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1998,40
[34] 尹东年,郭瑜.海上货物运输法.第1版.北京:人民法院出版社,2000,73
[35] 王利明.侵权行为法归责原则研究.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,1992,31
[36] 李积洪.论司法实践中的海商法.载北京大学法学院海商法研究中心主办.海商法研究(第1辑).北京:法律出版社,1999,71
[37] 李洪.海事索赔责任限制制度浅议.海事审判,1993,(4):6
[38] [英]John F.Wilson.再评具单交货原则.黄永申译.中国海商法协会通讯,1997,(3):21
[39] 杨良宜.提单及其付运单证.第1版.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001,124
[40] Bryan A. Garner. Black's Law Dictionary. 7th edition. New York: West Group, 1999, 570
[41] 金正佳.中国海事审判年刊1999.第1版.北京:人民交通出版社,1999,335-339
[42] 韦祖林.无单放货法律责任问题研究:[安徽大学硕士学位论文].合肥:安徽大学法学院,2003,14
[43] 杨良宜.无提单放货.中国海商法年刊,1994,(13):13