对无单放货行为法律性质的理论研究

发布时间：2018-05-19 03:09

本文选题：无单放货 + 侵权　；参考：《中国海洋大学》2006年硕士论文

【摘要】： 随着国际贸易的发展,海上货物运输在世界经济发展中的重要地位愈加明显。但近年来,由于现代航运技术的进步及我国相关制度不完善造成的行业管理混乱,“无单放货”纠纷案件大量的发生。我国《海商法》对提单的规定较为简单。只是将其作为运输单证来定位,对提单及货物的交付没有作出具体的规定,理论界对无单放货行为的法律定性没有形成一致的关点;司法实践中由于没有系统的理论基础,经常会看到定性大相径庭的情况。为了避免这种同类案件定性不同甚至一审、二审和再审中对同一案件的认定也截然不同的情况的发生,认为有必要对无单放货行为的法律定性形成系统的理论。本文认为不能对无单放货进行同一定性,应当从无单放货行为的两个相对方——无单放货人与提单持有人的不同角度以及不同当事人之间的不同关系分别论述各种情况下无单放货行为的法律性质。文章首先例举了目前理论界已有的各种观点成果,并——分析了各种理论存在的缺陷与疏漏进而指出:无单放货行为会因为不同的行为人、不同的相对人呈现不同的表现形式,并在不同当事人之间产生不同的法律关系,因此对无单放货的法律定性不能一概而论,必须针对每一个案件的不同当事人特定的法律地位进行综合判断而得出定性结论。文章第二部分对各种无单放货人的无单放货行为进行界定。在将无单放货人分为承运人、承运人代理人、及其他相关人三大类的基础上分别得出结论:(1)承运人实施得无单放货行为对于托运人来说具有违约性;对于提单持有人来说具有侵权性。(2)承运人代理人实施的无单放货行为在承运人授权的情况下形成共同侵权;代理人在承运人不知情的情况下擅自进行的无单放货一方面是对承运人的违约行为,它违反了与承运人之间的委托代理合同,另一方面侵犯了持单人基于提单所享有的权利。(3)其他相关人如港务公司、码头、仓储公司等仅与承运人具有一般业务关系的相关人员的无单放货行为一般情况下构成侵权。文章第三部分分析了针对不同提单持有人无单放货行为的法律性质。在将提单持有人分为货物买卖合同中的卖方、信用证业务中的银行和提单流转过程中的普通提单受让人三大类的基础上分别得出结论:(1)卖方为持单人的情况下:在
[Abstract]:With the development of international trade, the importance of sea cargo transportation in the development of world economy becomes more and more obvious. However, in recent years, due to the progress of modern shipping technology and the confusion of industry management caused by the imperfection of relevant system in our country, there are a lot of disputes about "delivery of goods without bill". The regulation of bill of lading in Maritime Law of China is relatively simple. As a transport document, there are no specific provisions on the delivery of bills of lading and goods, and there is no consistent point for the legal characterization of undocumented delivery of goods in the theoretical circle; there is no systematic theoretical basis in judicial practice. It is often seen that the nature of the situation is very different. In order to avoid this kind of similar case qualitative difference or even the first instance, the second trial and the retrial regarding the same case the confirmation also the occurrence of the different situation, thought that it is necessary to form the systematic theory to the legal nature of the undocumented delivery of goods. In this paper, we do not think that the same qualitative analysis can be carried out on the delivery of goods without documents. The legal nature of non-bill of lading should be discussed from the two opposite sides of non-bill of lading, the different angles between the drafter and the holder of bill of lading, as well as the different relations between different parties. At first, this paper gives an example of the existing viewpoints in the field of theory, and then analyzes the defects and omissions of these theories and points out that the behavior of loading goods without bill of lading will take on different forms of expression because of different actors and different relative persons. And there are different legal relations between different parties, so the legal characterization of undocumented goods can not be generalized, we must make a comprehensive judgment on the specific legal status of different parties in each case and draw a qualitative conclusion. In the second part, the author defines the behavior of non-bill-delivery. On the basis of dividing the undocumented cargo delivery into three categories: carrier, carrier agent, and other related persons, it is concluded that: 1) the carrier has breach of contract to the shipper; For the holder of bill of lading, it is tort. 2) the act of delivery without bill of lading carried out by the agent of the carrier forms joint infringement under the authorization of the carrier; On the one hand, the agent's unauthorized release of undocumented goods without the carrier's knowledge is a breach of the carrier's contract of agency, which violates the contract of entrustment with the carrier. On the other hand, it infringes the rights of the holder based on bill of lading) other related persons, such as port company, wharf, warehousing company, etc. The third part of the article analyzes the legal nature of the delivery of goods against different bill of lading holders. On the basis of dividing the holder of bill of lading into three categories: seller in the contract of sale of goods, bank in letter of credit business and transferee of ordinary bill of lading in the course of the circulation of bill of lading, it is concluded that the seller is a holder in the case of:
【学位授予单位】：中国海洋大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2006
【分类号】：D922.294

【引证文献】