当前位置:主页 > 法律论文 > 商法论文 >

解析海运提单中的“不知条款”

发布时间:2018-05-12 06:14

  本文选题:不知条款 + 法律性质 ; 参考:《西南政法大学》2008年硕士论文


【摘要】: “不知条款”(Unknown Clause)实际上是一种泛称,是指承运人对所接收的货物数量、重量等情况无法核对,或对货物内容无法知悉,为避免将来对收货人或者提单持有人承担责任而在提单中写上的“数量不知(quantity unknown)”、“重量不知(weight unknown)”、“据称重(said toweight)”或者“据说装有(said to contain)”等类似的免责文句。由于这一条款对承运人有利,承运人对使用该条款乐此不疲。在实践中,越来越多的纠纷涉及到“不知条款”,一旦出现货物短量或者货物不符,“不知条款”的存在有可能会使得收货人或者提单持有人的索赔之路困难重重。所以,有必要对该条款进行系统的研究。 本文包括以下的六个部分: 前言主要介绍了本文写作的目的和相关领域的研究现状。 第一部分是关于“不知条款”一般问题的介绍。首先,“不知条款”有其产生的现实合理性和存在的法律可行性。货物收据功能是提单具有的一项基本功能,基于提单的这一功能,承运人有义务将提单所列的货物按照其接收货物时同样的状态交付给收货人或者提单持有人,否则,将对收货人或者提单持有人承担赔偿责任。然而,提单上关于货物基本情况的描述是由托运人提供的,由于种种现实原因,托运人有时候提供的货物资料不一定正确。若是让其对非因自己的行为产生的结果承担责任,对承运人来说是不公平的。为了使自己免于陷入这样一种困境,承运人便在提单上加注“不知条款”。国际公约和各国国内立法对承运人的这一行为进行了确认,给“不知条款”的存在提供了法律依据。其次,介绍了“不知条款”的表现形式。在班轮运输中,直接运输散货或者件货时,“不知条款”通常使用“重量不知(weight unknown)”、“据申报(said co be)”等措辞,而在使用集装箱进行运输时,“不知条款”则表现为“托运人装箱、计数(SLAC-Shipper's load and Count)”等表述。第三,对“不知条款”的法律性质进行了探讨。笔者认为,不管承运人在提单上对货物状况的描述进行“保留”或者是“否定”,其实质上就是为了在一定情况发生的时候,能够免除自己的赔偿责任,所以,“不知条款”应当定性为一种提单上的免责条款。第四,分析了“不知条款”和清洁提单的关系。笔者认为提单清洁与否关键是看提单上是否注有“包装不固”、“沾有油污”、“包装开裂”等关于货物表面状况不良的描述,所以,载有“不知条款”的提单仍然是清洁提单。 第二部分对“不知条款”的影响进行了阐述。首先,如果提单载有一个有效的“不知条款”,即使提单转移至善意的受让人手中,在“不知”的范围内,提单上关于货物的描述也不能约束承运人,最直接的影响是提单的证据效力遭到否定。其次,在海运货损索赔中,索赔方原本只需要提供一份清洁提单就能够证明货物交给承运人时的状况,但是,如果提单中有一个有效的“不知条款”,就否定了提单的记载,索赔方不得不对货物情况重新搜集证据进行举证,加重了索赔方承担的举证责任。第三,在集装箱运输条件下,由于加重了索赔方的举证责任,索赔方的索赔之路困难重重,很有可能自己承担所有的损失。笔者通过列举案例并分析的方法,侧重于介绍对索赔方索赔结果的影响。第四,在集装箱运输条件下,“不知条款”有可能影响承运人的赔偿限额。由于“不知条款”使得提单上记载的集装箱内货物的具体单位数不再具有证据效力,若是索赔方不能够证明集装箱内货物的确切的单位数,则在计算承运人的赔偿限额时就以集装箱作为计量单位。 第三部分就“不知条款”的效力认定问题进行分析。目前对“不知条款”的效力认定存在着两种截然相反的观点:一种是认为该条款属于减轻承运人义务和责任的条款,应当认定为无效;另外一种则是认为该条款有效。但是在将“不知条款”认定为有效时,所保护的利益不同,具体做法也有差异。英国是传统的海运大国,其专注于保护承运人的利益,所以在对“不知条款”的效力认定上持比较宽松的态度;而美国则偏重于保护货方的利益,主张有条件的承认“不知条款”的效力。笔者认为,无论是从立法本意,还是从现实需要来看,有条件的承认“不知条款”的效力才是一种正确的观点。何谓有条件?就是只有当承运人确实无法核对提单上关于货物描述是否正确时,该条款始得有效。即,只承认符合事实的“不知条款”。在本部分,笔者还就集装箱运输实践中承运人滥用“不知条款”情况下的效力认定进行了分析,在整箱货运输的情况下,如果承运人安排或指定装箱地点,或者承运人提供“免费装箱”服务,“不知条款”应当被认定为无效;在拼箱货运输情况下,如果集装箱货运站是由承运人委托进行装箱,则“不知条款”不能够被认定为有效。 第四部分是对中国海商立法和实践的建议。我国现行的《海商法》自1993年施行以来就未经过修改,其对“不知条款”的规范也仅仅是照搬了《汉堡规则》的相关条款,给了它一个可以存在的法律背景,但是规定过于宽泛,在现实中由“不知条款”产生的纠纷日益增多,我国的立法已经不能满足现实的需要,所以,有必要对《海商法》的相关规定进行补充和完善。笔者建议在立法中应当对“不知条款”进行一个界定,其次,应当对“不知条款”的效力进行明确。在相关法律法规出台之前,在航运实务中,相关的当事人也应重视“不知条款”这一问题,以保护自己的合法权益,促进航运业的健康发展。 结语部分总结了本文的主要观点以及在本领域的意义。
[Abstract]:"Unknown Clause" is actually a generic term, which means that the carrier can not check the quantity and weight of the goods received or know the contents of the goods, to avoid the "quantity unknown" in the bill of lading in order to avoid the liability of the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading (W). "W "Eight unknown)", "said toweight" or "said to contain", such as "said to contain", and other similar exemptions. Because of this clause is beneficial to the carrier, the carrier is not tired of the use of this clause. In practice, more and more disputes involve "unknown clause", once the short quantity of goods or goods is not consistent, " The existence of "unknown clause" may cause difficulties for the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading to claim compensation. Therefore, it is necessary to make a systematic study of the clause.
This article includes the following six parts:
The foreword mainly introduces the purpose of this article and the current research situation in related fields.
The first part is an introduction to the general question of the "unknown clause". First, the "unknown clause" has its realistic rationality and legal feasibility. The function of the goods receipt is a basic function of the bill of lading. Based on this function of the bill of lading, the carrier is obliged to take the goods listed in the bill of lading as they receive the goods. The state is delivered to the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading. Otherwise, the consignee or the holder of the bill of lading will be liable for compensation. However, the description of the basic situation of the goods on the bill of lading is provided by the shipper. For various practical reasons, the shipper sometimes provides the goods for the goods that are not necessarily correct. It is unfair for the carrier to take responsibility for the result. In order to prevent it from falling into such a predicament, the carrier added "unknown clause" to the bill of lading. International conventions and domestic legislation have confirmed the carrier's behavior and provided a legal basis for the existence of "unaware clause". Secondly, In liner transportation, "weight unknown", "said co be" and other wording are usually used when transporting bulk cargo or goods in liner transportation, and when the container is transported, "unaware clause" is "shipper packing, count (SLAC-Shippe)". "R's load and Count)" and other expressions. Third, the legal nature of the "unknown clause" is discussed. I believe that the carrier's description of the condition of the goods on the bill of lading is "reserved" or "negative" in fact, in fact, in order to avoid its own liability for a certain situation, so, "no" The knowledge clause should be regarded as a disclaimer on the bill of lading. Fourth, the relationship between the "unknowing clause" and the clean bill of lading is analyzed. The author thinks that the key to the cleaning of the bill of lading is to see whether the bill of lading has a description of the bad surface condition of the goods on the bill of lading, such as "packaging is not fixed", "oil contamination", "packing and cracking", etc. The bill of lading is still a clean bill of lading.
The second part expounds the influence of the "unknowing clause". First, if a bill of lading contains an effective "unknowing clause", even if the bill of lading is transferred to a bona fide assignee, the description of the goods on the bill of lading cannot be bound by the carrier in the "unknown" range, and the most direct effect is whether the evidence effect of the bill of lading is not. Second, in the claim for marine cargo damage, the claimant originally only needed to provide a clean bill of lading to prove the condition of the delivery of the goods to the carrier. However, if there was an effective "unknown clause" in the bill of lading, the claimant denied the bill of lading, and the claimant had to reclaim evidence of the goods and aggravated the claim. Third, under the condition of container transport, because of the burden of proof of the claimant, the claimant's claim way is difficult, and it is likely to bear all the losses. The author, through a list of cases and analysis methods, focuses on the impact of the claim results. Fourth, in the container transport bar. The "unknown clause" may affect the limit of the carrier's compensation. The number of specific units in the container recorded in the bill of lading no longer has evidence, and if the claimant is not able to prove the exact number of units in the container, it will be used in the calculation of the carrier's limit of compensation in the case of the container. As a unit of measurement.
The third part analyzes the validity of the "unknown clause". There are two opposite views on the validity of the "unknown clause": one is that the clause belongs to the clause of reducing the obligation and responsibility of the carrier and should be deemed to be invalid; the other is that the clause is valid. When the terms are found to be valid, the interests are different and the specific practices are different. Britain is a traditional maritime power, which focuses on the protection of the carrier's interests, so it has a relatively relaxed attitude towards the validity of the "unknown clause", while the United States favors the interests of the protecting party and advocates the conditional recognition of "no one". The author believes that it is the right point of view, whether it is from the original meaning of the legislation, or from the actual needs, that the validity of the "unknown clause" is a correct view. What is the condition? That is, only when the carrier can not check whether the description of the goods is correct on the bill of lading is valid. That is, it only recognizes the compliance. In this part, the author also analyzes the effectiveness of the carrier in the practice of container transport in the case of the misuse of the "unknown clause". In the case of the transportation of the container, if the carrier arranges or specifies the packing place, or the carrier provides the "free packing" service, the "unknown clause" should be used. In case of container cargo transportation, if the container freight station is entrusted by the carrier for packing, the "unknown clause" can not be deemed to be valid.
The fourth part is a proposal for the legislation and practice of Chinese maritime merchants. The current maritime law of China has not been amended since its implementation in 1993, and its standard of "unknown clause" is merely a copy of the relevant provisions of the Hamburg Rules, giving it a legal background that can exist, but the provisions are too broad to be "unknown" in reality. There is a growing number of disputes arising from the terms and conditions. Our legislation can not meet the needs of the reality. Therefore, it is necessary to supplement and improve the relevant provisions of the maritime law. The author suggests that the "unknowing clause" should be defined in the legislation. Secondly, the effectiveness of "unaware clause" should be clearly defined. Before the regulation, in shipping practice, the concerned parties should also pay attention to the issue of "not knowing the terms", in order to protect their legitimate rights and interests and promote the healthy development of the shipping industry.
The conclusion summarizes the main points of this article and its significance in this field.

【学位授予单位】:西南政法大学
【学位级别】:硕士
【学位授予年份】:2008
【分类号】:D996.19

【引证文献】

相关硕士学位论文 前2条

1 文丽;海运提单批注的法律研究[D];华东政法大学;2011年

2 刘定凯;浅析集装箱提单中的“不知条款”[D];华东政法大学;2011年



本文编号:1877450

资料下载
论文发表

本文链接:https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/sflw/1877450.html


Copyright(c)文论论文网All Rights Reserved | 网站地图 |

版权申明:资料由用户e6944***提供,本站仅收录摘要或目录,作者需要删除请E-mail邮箱bigeng88@qq.com