论海上货物运输合同下的货物交付

【作者】 陈友喜；

【导师】 於世成；

【作者基本信息】 上海海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 国际海上货物运输合同引发的纠纷多种多样，其中货物损坏、灭失、迟延交付、无单放货等问题的研究已经受到足够的关注，但对货物交付问题的研究却很少有人问津。本文结合国内外对货物交付有关的理论和实践，分析了我国法律规定的不足，并提出一些解决相关问题的思路和途径。 全文共分四章。 第一章是有关承运人的认定问题。在海上货物运输合同中，首先需要明确的是谁负有交付货物的义务，因此就产生了承运人的认定问题。英美普通法有很多有关承运人识别的经典案例，但判决缺少一致性，使得海上货物运输合同的当事人感到不知所措。《海牙规则》促进了国际海事法律的统一，但该规则明显存在缺陷，在承运人的定义上含混不清，易产生争议。 我国《海商法》吸收了《汉堡规则》的规定，将承运人定义为“本人或委托他人以本人名义与托运人订立海上货物运输合同的人”，解决了《海牙规则》对承运人定义的含混不清的问题。从司法实践上看，承运人的认定主要以提单的签发为标准，即签发提单的人为承运人。这样，承运人的认定变得明确、简捷。另外，我国《海商法》设立了实际承运人的概念，使得承运人的制度更为完善。 第二章探讨的是交付的认定、提货通知、货物交付的地点、时间、货物在混合时如何交付以及油类货物的交付问题。我国《海商法》除交付时间外，未对上述问题作出规定，实务中常围绕上述问题产生了许多争议。本文借鉴英美学者的理论观点和法院判例，结合我国航运业的实际情况，提出解决上述问题的途径。 第三章是本文的重点，该章讨论了目的港无人提货的问题。我国《海商法》第86条规定了卸货港无人提货、收货人迟延提货、拒绝提货时，承运人可以采取的措施。但该条的规定太笼统，实践上难以操作，无法保护承运人的利益。在研究了英国《1894年商船法》、《韩国商法典》和《澳门商法典》有关规定的基础上，提出了解决无人提货问题的具体建议。 第四章研究的是诉权问题。诉权是困扰司法界多年的问题，海事法院对此看法不一。焦点是托运人的诉权问题，我国《海商法》规定了交付货物的人和与承运人订约的人均为托运人，但有些法院仪承认与承运人订约的人具有诉权。本文研究了英国早期有关托运人诉权的法院判例以及1885年《提单法》和1992年《海上货物运输法》的规定，分析了国际海事委员会的《统一运输法最终框架文件草案》，指出我国应采用《统一运输法最终框架文件草案》中有关诉权的规定。 本文分析了国内外学者的观点和法院判例，认为承运人的认定以签发提单为准，谁签发了提单，谁就为承运人，而不管他是否实际从事运输。针对卸货港无人提货、收货人迟延提货、拒绝提货的情况，列《海商法》第86条提出了修改建议。.3，正E片且认为，我国应采用《统一运输法最终框架文件草案》中有关诉权的规更多还原

【Abstract】 International contract of carriage of goods by sea may lead to many disputes, among which the loss of or damage to the goods, delay in delivery, delivery of goods without presentation of original bills of lading, etc, have frequently attracted attention. However, few people care for the issue regarding delivery of goods. In combination of discussions on practice and legal issues of delivery of goods home and abroad, this dissertation analyzes some defects on Chinese law and renders advice on how to resolve matters relating to delivery of goods.The whole dissertation consists of four chapters.Chapter 1 discusses identification of the carrier. In the practice of contact of carriage of goods by sea, the most important question might be who has the obligation to deliver the goods. In answering this question, the identification of the carrier therefore becomes very important. There are many leading cases in Common law, but some judgments are different so that parties to the contract are at a loss. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to Bills of Lading (Hague Rules) promoted unification of international maritime law, but the Rules had its defect in that the definition of the carrier was vague. Thus the definition easily led to argument.The Maritime Code of the People ’s Republic of China (CMC) adopts some regulation of United Nations Convention on the Carnage of Goods by Sea (Hamburg Rules), in which carrier is defined as the person by whom or in whose name a contract of carriage of goods by sea has been concluded with a shipper. The definition of the carrier in CMC solves the problem of vagueness in Hague Rules. According to theory and practice the identification of the carrier depends on issuing bills of lading. Thus the identification of the carrier becomes simplified and easy. In addition CMC establishes "the actual carrier", and makes the definition of the carrier perfect.Chapter 2 deals with delivery, the notice of delivery of the goods, the place and time of delivery of the goods, delivery of the goods when mixed and delivery of oil. CMC makes no provision on the above-mentioned matters except time of delivery of goods so that it leads to many disputes in practice.In discussing the above aspects, references are made to maritime works and cases in Britain and US. The author also seeks in this chapter to furnish advice as to how to resolve disputes arising out of shipping industry.This dissertation emphasizes on chapter 3. This chapter is about problems that no person takes delivery of the goods at the port where the goods is discharged. Article 86 in CMC entitles the carrier to takes some measures when no person takes delivery of the goods, the consignee has delayed or refused the taking delivery of goods at the port of discharge. In fact this article is not manoeuvrable. This dissertation makes research into English Merchant Shipping Act1894, compares Merchant Code in Macao with Merchant Code in South Korea and makes judicial suggestion.Chapter 4 is about the title to sue. The title to sue has perplexed courts for many years and maritime courts disagree with one another. They focuses on the shipper’s title to sue. CMC makes provision that the person who delivers the goods or concludes the contract with the carrier is the shipper, but some maritime courts only takes the person who conclude a contract with the carrier for the shipper. This passage makes research into some cases about the shipper’s title to sue in Britain and its Bills of Lading in 1855 and Carriage of Goods by Sea in 1992,analyzes "Final Outline Draft of CMI Uniform Transport Code" and points out China should adopt the title to sue in "Final Outline Draft of CMI Uniform Transport Code".This dissertation analyzes theory and cases home and abroad, and concludes that the identification of the carrier depends on the issuing of bills of lading. Whoever issues the Bills of Lading is the carrier, no matter whether he issues a bill of lading or not. When no person takes delivery of goods , consignee has delay更多还原