无单放货法律问题研究

【作者】 王弱；

【导师】 杨树明；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 近年来，海事审判实践中的无单放货纠纷案在海事法院收审案件中所占的比例居高不下，无单放货行为的法律属性问题也成为案件当事人所争议的焦点和海商法学界的研究热点以及相关法院审理同类案件的难点。无单放货行为往往会因为行为人的不同、相对人的不同以及促成行为的主客观要件的不同而构成不同的法律关系，而对无单放货行为的不同定性，又直接关系到当事人权利义务的确定以及诉讼的结果。因此，有必要对无单放货的法律问题作一专门研究。本文先就无单放货的性质和责任范围作了一番探讨，而后针对承运人在无单放货案件中可能援用的抗辩事由作一专门分析与评价，最后提出了解决无单放货问题的法律对策。 本文主要分为五大部分，第一部分论述了无单放货的产生及其表现形式，指出了海运实践中常常出现的不规范的“无单放货”现象。 第二部分主要是对于无单放货的法律责任进行了定性。对于无单放货的法律责任问题，理论界与实务界皆有很大争议。目前，理论界对无单放货的法律责任问题主要存在违约说、侵权说、违约与侵权竟合说和例外侵权说四种学说；实践中，法院也曾依据不同理论作出“违约”与“侵权”等截然不同的判决。本文从区分提单在不同环节所具有的不同功能出发，指出了以上四种学说所存在的不足，并认为由于无单放货主体的多样性及相对人的复杂性，决定了对于无单放货不能统一定性，而只能视情况将其定性为违约或侵权或两者相竟合。 第三部分主要论述了无单放货损害赔偿的责任构成与责任范围。在责任构成部分，笔者从赔偿责任成立的三个构成要件出发，指出了确定损害的概念和一国基本损害赔偿制度对于分析无单放货法律责任能否得以成立的意义。在责任范围部分，本文主要论述了损害之构成要素、损害之计算方法及因果关系在确定损害赔偿范围中的作用。 第四部分主要论述了无单放货中承运人可能援用的抗辩事由，并分析了承运人能否以这些抗辩事由摆脱无单放货的法律责任。这些抗辩事由是禁止反言、卸货港法律或习惯、记名提单、延立提货、时效、责任期间。在禁止反言部分里，主要介绍了禁止反言的概念、适用条件、其在审理无单放货案件中的作用以及禁止反言原则在我国的适用情况；在卸货港法律或习惯部分里，主要介绍了卸货港法律或习惯影响无单放货的案例、确定卸货港法律或习惯的标准、卸货港习惯抗辩与禁止反言的关系以及我国在此方面的做法。在记名提单部分里，笔者主要针对宝眺提单的性质和功能进行了一番探讨，指出宝眺提单虽不得转让，但仍不失为我国《海商法》第71条所规定的提单，仍具有该条规定的提单的属性与功能，并重申了在记名提单情况下，和孟人仍负有凭单交货的义务。在延迟提货能否作为抗辩事由以减轻承运人无单放货责任这一问题里，本文认为在提货严重迟延的情况下，船舶所有人应是以非自愿托管人的身份而非承运人的身份代表货物所有人保管货物，而这一义务应比一般承运人的义务要低。在时效能否作为抗辩事由这一问题上，笔者主要滩十对无单放货的时效期间和时效的起算点进行了论述，认为无单放货并不导致承运人丧失一年时效抗辩;同时认为无单放货一年时效期间应从和遏人应当交付货物之日起计算.在无单放货责任是否受承运人责任期间的限制这一问题上，本文认为责任期间不能成为承运人的抗辩理由，并做出了相应的解释。 第五部分为无单放货之法律对策.在该部分里，本文认为，就目前的发展状况而言，存在两种浏良本上解决无单放货问题的方法:一是海运单，二是电子提单.更多还原

【Abstract】 In recent years, the legal nature of discharging goods without the Bill of Lading has been the focus between the parties, a hot topic among scholars on Maritime Law and a difficulty in trial. Discharging goods without B/L usually constitutes different legal relations because of the diversity of doers, its counterparts and the difference among the subjective and objective essential elements. Nevertheless, defining the nature of discharging goods without B/L can directly determine the rights and obligations of the concerning parties and the consequence of the action. Therefore, there’s some need to do more research on this issue.This thesis is composed of five parts. The author addresses the generation of discharging goods without B/L and its manifestation in the first part.In the second part, the author defines the nature of its legal liability. As to the issue on the legal liability of discharging goods without B/L, there exist great disputes among scholars and in practice. At present, there are four doctrines on the legal liability of discharging goods without B/L in theory: the doctrine on breach of contract, the doctrine on tort, the doctrine on the concurrence of breach and tort, and the doctrine on exceptional tort. In practice, the court had made controversial decisions according to different doctrines. Beginning with the different functions of B/L in different places, the author points out the deficiency of the above four doctrines and proposes that because of the diversity of the subjects on discharging goods without B/L and the complexity of its counterpart the nature of discharging goods without B/L cannot be defined in uniform and we can only consider it as breach, tort, or concurrence of the two according to the existing conditions.In the third part, the author addresses the conditions constituting the liability of compensation for damage and its range of liability during the process of discharging goods without B/L. For the conditions constituting the lability, the author begins with the three essential elements constituting the lability of compensation, points out the meaning of defining the definition ofcompensation and a country’s essential system on compensation for damage to the issue on whether the legal liability of discharging goods without B/L could be determined. For the liability range the author addresses the impact induced by the elements of compensation, the calculating approach of the compensation and its causality in determine the compensation range.In the fourth part, the author discusses the possible pleading reasons quoting by the carriers during the process of discharging goods without B/L and analyses whether these reasons could help the carrier getting rid of the legal liability. These pleading reasons includes estoppel, the law or customs in discharging port, named B/L, delayed taking, time bar, period of responsibility.In the fifth part, the author gives out her own idea on how to solve the issue on discharging goods without B/L from the perspective of law. The author believes that as far as the present conditions concerned, there exist two basic approaches solving the issue on discharging goods without B/L: one is using the sea waybill, the other is using the electronic bill of lading.更多还原