无单放货若干问题明晰

发布时间：2018-02-20 06:14

本文关键词： 无单放货若干问题明晰　出处：《上海海事大学》2003年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在航运实践中，由于船舶周转的快速性与提单流转滞后的时间差，承运人常常被迫凭保函无单放货。据统计，班轮运输中存在15％的无单放货现象，租船运输能到达50％，某些重要商品如矿物、油的交易中高达100％。承运人在海上运输中负有向提单持有人交货的义务，须对其未凭单交货的行为负责。据不完全统计，在所有无单放货的诉案中，承运人(代理人)被判决承担责任的占90％以上。本文应用比较研究和判例研究的方法，从承运人货物交付义务入手，提出了适当确认提单“物权凭证”之功能，将运输中的货物交付和买卖合同有机结合起来，同时确立承运人在记名提单下也须凭单交货，对于正确分析和处理无单放货是十分有益的。对无单放货性质，目前存在着“违约说”、“侵权说”和“责任竞合说”。尽管最高法院在粤海公司与仓码公司、特发公司一案中已经明确认定无单放货为违约，但判决在我国没有法律约束力。笔者赞成无单放货的性质属于违约和侵权的竞合，当事人对此有权选择以违约或侵权之诉来提起诉讼，并认为违约之诉更具优越性。关于无单放货是否是违法行为，有观点认为无单放货违背了《海商法》第七十一条规定的“凭提单交付货物”的法定义务，因而属违法行为。笔者认为凭正本提单交付货物仅是承运人的合同义务，是一种保证责任，不是法律上的强制性规定。无单放货责任承担的总的原则是：承运人对无单放货承担全部责任，，只要没有免责事由，应负损害赔偿责任而不论主观上有无过错。文章认为，在原告提起无单
[Abstract]:In shipping practice, due to the delay between the speed of ship turnover and the lag of bill of lading, the carrier is often forced to release the goods on guarantee. According to statistics, there is 15% undocumented delivery in liner shipping. Chartered shipping can reach 50%, some important commodities such as minerals, oil transactions up to 100. The carrier is liable for the delivery of goods to the holder of bill of lading in the carriage by sea. According to incomplete statistics, the carrier (agent) is judged to be responsible for more than 90% of all cases in which the goods are released without bill of lading. By using the method of comparative study and case study, this paper, starting with the carrier's obligation to deliver goods, puts forward the function of properly confirming the "document of title" of the bill of lading, which organically combines the delivery of goods in transportation with the contract of sale and purchase. At the same time, it is helpful to correctly analyze and deal with the delivery of goods without bill of lading by establishing that the carrier must deliver goods by voucher under the bearer bill of lading. There are currently "breach of contract", "tort" and "liability concurrence" regarding the nature of delivery of goods without documents. Although the Supreme Court in the case of Yuehai Company and warehouse code company, Tefa Company has clearly found that the delivery of goods without documentary evidence is a breach of contract. However, the judgment is not legally binding in our country. The author agrees that the nature of delivery of goods without documentary evidence belongs to the concurrence of breach of contract and infringement, for which the parties have the right to choose to sue for breach of contract or tort, and think that the action of breach of contract is superior. As to whether it is an illegal act to release goods without a bill of lading, there is a view that the delivery of goods without bill of lading is contrary to the legal obligation of "delivery by bill of lading" under Article 71th of the Maritime Law. The author believes that delivery of goods by original bill of lading is only a contractual obligation of the carrier and is a duty of surety, not a mandatory provision in law. The general principle of undocumented delivery liability is that the carrier shall bear full liability for the delivery of goods without documentary evidence, and shall be liable for damages, regardless of subjective fault, as long as there is no reason for exemption.
【学位授予单位】：上海海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2003
【分类号】：D922.294

【引证文献】