无单放货若干法律问题研究

【作者】 刘丽芳；

【导师】 侯军；

【作者基本信息】 上海海事大学 ， 国际法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 随着国际贸易和航运业的发展,航速越来越快,承运人不凭提单交付货物的现象越来越普遍。据统计,无单放货在班轮运输中占15%,在某些重要商品如矿物、石油的交易中高达100%。无单放货纠纷近年来在海事法院收审案件中,一直占据很高的比例。本文从法律和实务角度,对无单放货案件中实体法上和程序法上的一些重要问题进行了深层次和比较全面的研究,以促进和完善海上货物运输法律制度,并将促进航运事业的发展。为了更深入的分析无单放货的法律性质,笔者从提单的性质入手,论述了提单的物权性和债权性。就提单的物权凭证性质,笔者持肯定态度,但认为提单是一种占有凭证,而非当然的所有权凭证,持有提单只是享有提单项下货物所有权的初步证据。同时,提单之所以能体现承运人和提单持有人之间的权利义务关系这种债的法律关系,笔者认为是法律规定的结果,是由提单的作用所决定的。从而,就无单放货的性质而言,尽管最高法院在粤海公司和仓码公司、特发公司一案中已经明确认定无单放货属于违约,且在近几年的案件中,对于大多数案件法院也都以违约来定性。但笔者认为鉴于提单的物权性和债权性,无单放货案件构成违约和侵权的竞合,原告对诉因有选择权。本文进而论述了违约之诉和侵权之诉对诉讼当事人的不同影响。由于实践中无提单交付货物往往是由承运人、实际承运人或者他们的代理人、雇用人或港口经营人等实施的,本文结合我国法律和国际公约的规定以及国际航运实践的做法,分析了不同的主体实施无单放货行为时,承担损害赔偿责任的条件、责任种类、以及原告针对不同主体应以何种诉因起诉等问题。并对损害赔偿的计算方法等问题进行了论述。本文还论述了承运人在无单放货的情况下可能存在的各种抗辩以及承运人预防无单放货的一些做法。最后,由于无单放货行为发生在境外,在举证和证据的收集方面存在较大困难,有很多无单放货案件由于举证方提交的证据不符合形式要件而不被法院采纳。本文对无单放货案件中的证据问题进行了分析。并对电子证据在无单放货案件中的运用进行了深入研究。本文对无单放货的主要法律问题从多个方面进行了系统分析,希望会有助于无单放货制度在立方和司法方面的完善,从而能够更加正确地解决无单放货问题,以促进航运事业的健康发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of international trade and shipping practice, delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading becomes more and more popular. According to statistics, it accounts for approximately 15% of the total international liner services, and almost for 100% of important goods trade, such as ore and oil. And the cases maritime courts have accepted these years on delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading held large in shipping practice. In this paper, the author studied some important problems of delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading, and wish the result of such study will promote to constitute the better legal system of carriage of goods by sea in China, and will promote the development of shipping.The bill of lading was introduced from the aspects of basic law theory and some cases to analyze the legal character of delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading. In respect of the character of right in rem, the author held the point that bill of lading is a document of title, but it just is a document as a proof of indirect possession and control of goods, not ownership of goods. The holder of bill of lading has to propose other evidence to prove his ownership against the counterevidence, if it exists. So, the bill of lading exists as a prima facie evidence of goods ownership. Otherwise, bill of lading is a contract between carrier and the holder of bill of lading. Among the currently different views of point in respect of the legal character of bill of lading contract, this paper takes part with the opinion that the bill of lading contract is defined by law.So, delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading not only bears the feature of breach of bill of lading contract, but also accords with the requirement of tort. Therefore, it constitutes the combination of breach of contract and tort responsibilities. Although the Highest People’s Court has concluded that delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading constitutes breach of contract in the case, Yuehai Co. Ltd., v. Cangma Co. Ltd., and Tefa Co. Ltd.,. However, when actions are both of breach and in tort, the Chinese Law gives the victim the rights to choose to sue for tort or for breach, but some limitations in applying substantive law. Further, this paper analyzes the differences in several aspects when the holder of bill of lading sue for tort or for breach of contract.By virtue of the related provisions of the Maritime Code and the General Principles of Civil Law and with reference to international shipping practice, this paper analyzes the conditions under which the carrier, actual carrier, their agent and /or terminal operator may bear liability for loss arising from delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading and the forms of such liability. The liable persons in general shall return cargo or continue to deliver cargo, or compensate for loss. This paper also discusses the method for calculation of damages from delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading. The amount of damages shall be calculated by reference to the value of such goods at the place and time at which the goods are discharged from the ship in accordance with the contract or should have been so discharged. The value of the goods shall be fixed according to the commodity exchange price, or the discharge port current marketing price, or by reference to the normal value of goods of the same kind and quality. Carrier, actual carrier or their agent may defend the claims by time limitation, exclusion clause in charter party or in bill of lading, liability limitation, estoppel and so on.In many cases of delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading, evidences the parties proposed are not accepted by Courts because of not accordance with the form regulated by related laws. This paper discusses how the holder of bill should take evidence of fact about delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading.Focusing on the main legal problems of delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading, the author conducted a systematical research from law theory and case study and tried to analyze and explain the possible issues arising from the practical cases. Therefore the result of this study was expected to provide theoretical references for both parties involved in the cases of shipping business, and to promote the fair reasonable judicature and legislation on delivery of cargo without production of bill of lading.更多还原