目的港无人提货法律问题研究

发布时间：2019-06-01 19:46

【摘要】： 无人前来提领已经运抵目的港的货物，这种情形目前在国际集装箱班轮运输中已经并不鲜见，本文作者在从事律师工作中就曾经代理过多起此类案件的诉讼，，并痛感此类诉讼在给当事方带来严重损害的同时，也造成社会财富的巨大浪费。然而，本文作者也深感这一问题远没有引起我国海商法学界、海事司法界的足够重视，对于这一问题的研究也因此乏人间津。本文作者在总结自己代理此类案件所积累的经验基础上，对目的港无人提货相关法律问题进行了初步探讨。本文第一章首先基于篇幅的考虑和租船合同与集装箱班轮运输的区别，以定义的形式将本文的研究范围限定在国际集装箱班轮运输中的目的港无人提领或者收货人拒绝提领到港货物两种情形，总结、归纳了目的港无人提货问题的特征、产生的原因，分析了遭受目的港无人提货损害的当事方，指明在目前目的港无人提货问题中承运人是最大的损害承担者。本文第二章重点探讨因目的港无人提货所产生的民事责任。本文作者从合同转让制度的角度研究认为，国际海上货物运输合同并不具有约束第三方的性质，运输合同在通常情况下所具有的转让性是此类合同区别于其他合同的显著特征。海商法学界关于“国际海上货物运输合同具有约束第三方性质”的主张，并不是对于海上货物运输合同特征的准确描述，但这一主张却是导致在理解海商法相关条款上产生歧义、在司法实践中确定目的港无人提货主体时产生纷争的重要根源。从合同转让的角度，作者认为当国际海上货物运输合同表现出约束第三方(收货人)特征时，实际上受运输合同约束的该第三人已经以明确的意思表示加入到业已成立的运输合同当中，成为该运输合同的当事一方了。运输合同的转让不是权利、义务的全部转让，在运输合同转让后，托运人与受让运输合同的收货人一道，分别向承运人承担一定的合同义务，形成并存的债务承担。从合同转让的角度看，目的港无人提货或收货人拒绝提货，是运输合同的转让未能实现，因此作为运输合同一方的托运人，应当对于承运人因无法交付货物而遭受的损害承担赔偿责任。法律没有加诸收货人必须提取到港货物的义务。但当收货人以明确的意思表示加人／受让运输合同，成为运输合同的一方后，便应当承担起提领到港货物的义务。一般情况下，应当将收货人向承运人主张权利（要求提货或者就货物损坏、灭失或迟延交付行使索赔权）视为收货人受让运输合同的标志。本文第三章探讨实务中承运人在发生目的港无人提货时所面临的困境，解析民商法律和海关行政管理规定在处理目的港无人提取货物问题上的冲突，认为解决目的港无人提货问题，避免社会财富的巨大浪费，解脱承运人的困境，需要相关各方共同的努力，包括民商法律自身的完善，民商法律与海关行政管理规定的协调一致，当事方自身法律意识的提高和司法审判效率的改善。本文作者认为，缘于出口商品构成的限制，我国是目的港无人提货损害的重灾区。目的港无人提货法律问题的研究，对于维护我国航运、外贸企业乃至我们国家的利益，都有着非常重要的现实意义。
[Abstract]:No one has come to bring the goods that have arrived at the port of destination, which is not uncommon in the international container liner transportation, and the author has acted in a lawyer's work for a number of such cases. It also causes great waste of social wealth while causing serious harm to the parties. However, the author of this paper is also deeply concerned about this problem, which has not attracted enough attention from China's maritime and commercial law circles and the maritime judicial circles, and the research on this problem is also the result of this problem. On the basis of summing up the experience accumulated in this kind of case, the author has made a preliminary discussion on the legal issues related to the absence of pick-up in the port of destination. The first chapter of this article is based on the consideration of space and the difference between the charter party and the container liner, and defines the scope of this paper in the form of definition in the port of destination in the international container liner transportation, or the consignee refuses to bring to the port. The two cases of the goods are summarized, the characteristics of the problem of the absence of the goods in the port of destination are summarized, the cause of the production is analyzed, and the parties who are subject to the non-picking damage of the port of destination are analyzed, indicating that the carrier is not in the problem of picking up the goods at the present port of destination It's the biggest harm principal. The second chapter of this article is The author points out the civil liability arising from the absence of pick-up by the port of destination. The author of this paper is from the point of view of the contract transfer system that the contract of international carriage of goods by sea does not have the property of restricting the third party, and the transport contract has the transfer under the usual circumstances. The nature of this kind of contract is different from that of other contracts. The author's claim of the "The International Carriage of Goods by Sea has the property of restricting the nature of the third party" is not an accurate description of the contract features of the carriage of goods at sea, but this claim is the result of the ambiguity in understanding the relevant articles of the maritime law, which is determined in the judicial practice. In view of the angle of the transfer of the contract, the author believes that the third party, which is actually bound by the contract of transportation, has already been bound by the contract when the contract of the international carriage of goods shows the characteristics of the third party (the consignee). Means to join the already established shipment. The transfer of the contract of transportation is not the full transfer of the right and the obligation, and after the transfer of the contract, the shipper, together with the consignee of the transfer contract, respectively, to the carrier In the view of the transfer of the contract, no one or the consignee of the port of destination refuses to take the goods, and the transfer of the contract of carriage fails to be realized, and therefore, as the shipper of the party to the contract of carriage, the carrier shall, as the shipper of the party in the contract of carriage, be liable to the carrier The liability for damages suffered as a result of the inability to deliver the goods. The law does not add to the consignee. an obligation to extract the goods of a port, but when the consignee is in a clear sense The Buyer shall bear the responsibility of the addition/ transfer of the contract of carriage and becoming a party to the contract of carriage. The obligation to bring the goods to the port. In general, the goods should be received. to claim rights to the carrier (to demand delivery or to damage or destroy the goods) The loss or delay in delivery of the right to exercise is deemed to be the sign of the consignee's transfer of the contract of carriage. The third chapter of this paper discusses the practice The difficulties faced by the carrier in the absence of the delivery of the goods at the port of destination, and the analysis The law of the civil service and the administrative regulations of the customs administration stipulate that no one can extract the goods at the port of destination The conflict on the issue is that the solution is not picked up by the port of destination. The problem is to avoid the huge waste of social wealth, to release the plight of the carrier, and to need a phase The common efforts of all parties, including the perfection of the law of the civil service, the law of the people and the administration of the customs the coordination of the rules and regulations,
【学位授予单位】：大连海事大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2002
【分类号】：D996.19

【引证文献】