【作者】 严凌振；

【导师】 侯军；

【作者基本信息】 上海海运学院 ， 国际法学， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 无单放货，作为一个长期困扰航运与海事司法界的“老大难”问题，大家都知道其问题的严重性与高风险性，但在实务操作中又确有其必要性。近几年来，因无单放货产生纠纷导致诉讼的案件呈增长趋势。笔者希望通过此篇文章，对无单放货从实务与法律角度进行深层次与比较全面的研究，以促进与建立更加完善的海上货物运输法律制度，使承运人能适当而安全地适用无单放货，从而产生最佳的经济效益，最终将促进生产力的发展。 本文第一章从无单放货的概念分析入手，无单放货的含义从字面上理解应包括两个方面，“无单”即没有正本提单，“放货”即指放行或交付货物，故无单放货定义应为“承运人或其代理人、货物监管人没有凭正本提单交付货物的行为”，这一概念的概括扩展了其外延，与我国司法审判实践中使用无单放货这一概念实际情况相符合。 第二章论述无单放货的法律性质，笔者认为，无单放货具有违约性，因为保证凭正本提单交付货物是承运人在履行海上货物运输合同中的一项法定义务；无单放货具有侵权性，只要无单放货行为构成承担侵权行为民事责任的要件，无单放货行为人就必须承担赔偿责任；同时，无单放货的违约性和侵权性可能构成责任竞合时，我国法律允许受害人可以选择一个诉因行使其请求权，但对实体法请求权的选择，法律作出了一定范围的限制；最后，无单放货在某种程度上促进了航运业的发展，我们不能一概加以否定，无单放货在特定情况下具有一定的合理性。 第三章论述我国海事法院及其上级法院就无单放货案件审理的司法审判实践研究，通过对十个法院判例的分析、归纳，笔者认为，在司法实践中，法院越来越倾向于将无单放货纠纷视为运输合同纠纷处理，而不认定为侵权行为纠纷；法院允许原告起诉时以侵权起诉或违约起诉作出选择；法院对提单持有人的诉权认定，已经不采用“谁持有提单谁就有诉权”与“谁持有提单就能保证胜诉”的观点；有诸多的无单放货的诉讼案例以被法院驳回起诉为结局，证明了无单放货在特定情况下的合理性以及承运人有避免承担责任的可能性。 第四章重点论述关于无单放货的法律责任承担问题。主要论述无单放货的责任主体主要是承运人与承运人的代理人。无单放货损失界定的法律依据是我国《海商法》、《合同法》以及《民法通则》的相关规定，责任人一般要承担返还货物或继续履行交付货物，以及赔偿货物损失的责任。对赔偿损失的计算，应是货物价值加利息或违约金损失。货物的价值一般为CIF 价格，但对买方来说，其付款赎单后还可以主张期得利益损失的赔偿。承运人或其代理人在无单放货诉讼中提出的抗辩可能被法院所接受的理山主要有以下几点：提单持有人的行为构成了对无单放货的认可或对要求承运人凭正本提单交货权利的放弃；承运人可以援引租约或提单的规定提出免责；承运人运用时效进行抗辩。诉讼时效的起算与中断应适用《海商法》的规定而不适用《民法通则》的规定。提单持有人的救济措施包括向承运人要求返还货物或赔偿损失或向承运人的代理人要求返还货物或赔偿货物损失：当托运人作为的提单持有人，其有权依照贸易合同关系向买方追索货款；当开证行持有正本提单时，其可依据委托刀’立信用证的合同关系，向开证申请人主张信用证项下的款项。无单放货的保函如依法成立应当有效，但承运人不能以此作为抗辩提单持有人的理由，承运人在接受担保或保函时必须考虑出具担保或保函的保证人的资信情况，并审查担保或保函的语言与措词。承运人就无单放货在赔偿了提单持有人的损失后，依法享有向第三人追偿的权利。 第五章论述无单放诉讼的法律程序，就无单放货纠纷案件的管辖与法律适用原则，提单持有人在无单放货诉讼中的举证责任，以及如何举证无单放货有关事实，提单持有人如何选择诉因以及诉因选择的不同会导致实体法律适用的不同与损害赔偿范围的不同等问题作了具体的论述。 笔者希望通过这篇论文的研究，能够引起更多实业家与学者对无单放货进行更加深入的研究，以便对我国海商立法的进一步完善与司法公正作出应有的贡献。更多还原

【Abstract】 The problem of delivery of cargo without original bills of lading has been with us for a long time. We all know the risk and severe consequence of delivery of cargo without original bills of lading, but it is still necessary in shipping practice now. In recent years, the numbers of cases concerning delivery of cargo without original bills of lading goes up quickly. In this paper, the writer study the above problem and wish the result of such study will promote to constitute the better legal system of carriage of goods by sea in China. Also, writer want to give suitable ways for carriers to deliver cargo without original bills of lading safely and gain the best economic benefit, and this will promote the development of productivity finally.In CHAPTER ONE Writer try to analyze the concept of delivery of cargo without original bills of lading, the concept is "actions of the carrier, the agent or cargo’s supervisor to deliver cargo without original bills of lading", and this concept is in the same meaning in judicial practice of Maritime Court in China.CHAPTER TWO Legal Character about delivery of cargo without original bills of lading is the theoretic basis of this paper. Writer’s view of point is that delivery of cargo without original bills of lading has the character of breaching of the contract, because releasing cargo against original bills of lading is carrier’s legal liability in carrying out the carriage of goods by sea. Also it has the character of action in tort, as if the actions violate the civil law of liability in tort, the doer shall take on the liability of compensation. However when actions are both of breach and in tort, the Chinese Law gives the victim the rights to choose to sue in tort or of breach, but some limitations in applying substantive law. Finally, delivery of cargo without original bills of lading promote the developmentof shipping in a way in practice, it has reasonability in existence.CHAPTER THREE is writer’s study for 10 leading cases of Chinese Maritime Court and Court of Cassation concerning delivery of cargo without original bills of lading, writer conclude as follows: Chinese courts are inclined to regard it as breach of contract but not in tort in judicial practice; Chinese courts allow the plaintiff to choose to sue in tort or of breach; Chinese courts have abandoned the viewpoint of "who holder the bills who must have the right to sue" or "who holder the bills who must win the case" ; and in many cases concerning delivery of cargo without original bills of lading, the court ignored plaintiff’s actions against the carrier, it proved that carrier can escape reasonability of delivery of cargo without original bills of lading in some cases.CHAPTER THREE is about legal liability of delivery of cargo without original bills of lading. The main responsible persons in delivery of cargo without original bills of lading are carriers or their agents. The liable persons in general shall return of cargo or continue to deliver cargo, or compensate for losses according to "Maritime Code of PRC", "Contract Law of PRC", and "General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC". The losses shall be calculated base on the value of cargo, interests and default fine. The value of cargo shall be the GIF price of goods. To the buyer, one may claim the loss of profit after payment against documents. Defence of Carrier or agent may be accept by the Courts are following: the holder of bills of lading waive the right of demanding the carrier to release cargo against original bills of lading, or the holder recognize carrier’s such delivery; the carrier may use to site the clauses in charter party or in bills of ladings for denfence; the carrier may use time limitation for defence. The beginning of time limitation and discontinuance of time limitation shall not be according to regulations of "General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC", but "Maritime Code of PRC". The means of relief for holder of bills of lading as follows: take an action against the carrier or agent for demanding retu更多还原