【摘要】：關(guān)于國(guó)際貨物貿(mào)易領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)負(fù)擔(dān),本身就是一個(gè)容易引發(fā)爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn),但經(jīng)過時(shí)間的沉淀和實(shí)踐的積累,目前國(guó)際上通行的是風(fēng)險(xiǎn)自交付時(shí)轉(zhuǎn)移,即“交付主義”規(guī)則。而賣方的違約情況可能會(huì)對(duì)貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)在正常貿(mào)易流程中的過渡產(chǎn)生一定影響,至于是否會(huì)阻礙風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的方向要視具體情況而定。各國(guó)國(guó)內(nèi)法和國(guó)際條約對(duì)此都有著不同的規(guī)定,也間接地造成了同一個(gè)案件適用不同法規(guī)而處斷結(jié)果矛盾的尷尬局面,給實(shí)踐帶來了很大的困擾。所以討論各種理論觀點(diǎn)的合理性,來最終確定賣方在怎樣的違約情況下會(huì)對(duì)貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移產(chǎn)生影響是具有很大的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義的。 究其本質(zhì),真正承擔(dān)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的主體就是買賣雙方,如無違約或意外發(fā)生,依照正常的貿(mào)易操作流程,貨物的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)應(yīng)從賣方轉(zhuǎn)移至買方。而現(xiàn)實(shí)中的交易并非如此的簡(jiǎn)單,各種突發(fā)事件以及產(chǎn)生的不利后果往往會(huì)將其復(fù)雜化,如賣方未按合同約定交付貨物,買方遲延領(lǐng)取、拒絕付款等都是會(huì)影響風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的相關(guān)因素。賣方違約的行為可能會(huì)扭轉(zhuǎn)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的方向,重新劃分買賣雙方的責(zé)任分配,對(duì)合同當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利和義務(wù)產(chǎn)生較大的影響,在現(xiàn)實(shí)交易中也亟待確定的解決方案。就賣方違約與貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的關(guān)系,目前無論在立法領(lǐng)域還是學(xué)術(shù)界都沒有統(tǒng)一的定論,學(xué)者們各持己見。大致為:賣方違約影響貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的轉(zhuǎn)移,買方在無過錯(cuò)情況下不應(yīng)承擔(dān)貨物的毀壞及由此引發(fā)的一系列損失,風(fēng)險(xiǎn)回轉(zhuǎn)至賣方;另一種是即使賣方違約買方也應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)貨物的風(fēng)險(xiǎn),但可以要求賣方承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的違約責(zé)任并以此為救濟(jì)手段。筆者對(duì)以上兩種過于絕對(duì)化的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)確定規(guī)則都持否定態(tài)度,并提出了全新的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)負(fù)擔(dān)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),當(dāng)賣方違約與風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的發(fā)生有關(guān)系時(shí),賣方要對(duì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)損失承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的責(zé)任,反之只需在違約程度內(nèi)承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任即可。
[Abstract]:As to the risk burden in the field of international trade in goods, it is a controversial focus in itself, but after the accumulation of time and practice, it is generally accepted in the world that the risk is transferred from the time of delivery, that is, the rule of "delivering doctrine". The seller's breach of contract may have a certain impact on the transition of goods risk in the normal trade process, as to whether it will hinder the direction of risk transfer depends on the specific situation. Domestic laws and international treaties of different countries have different regulations on this, which indirectly cause the same case to apply different laws and regulations, and lead to the embarrassing situation of the result contradiction, which brings great troubles to the practice. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to discuss the rationality of various theories to determine the seller's influence on the risk transfer of goods under what kind of breach of contract. In essence, the main body that bears the risk is the buyer and seller. If there is no breach of contract or accidental occurrence, according to the normal trade operation process, the risk of goods should be transferred from the seller to the buyer. In reality, transactions are not so simple, and all kinds of emergencies and adverse consequences often complicate them, such as the seller does not deliver the goods as agreed in the contract, and the buyer delays the receipt of the goods. Refusal to pay is a related factor that affects risk transfer. The seller's breach of contract may reverse the direction of risk transfer, redivide the distribution of responsibilities between the seller and the buyer, and have a great impact on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. As to the relationship between seller's breach of contract and the transfer of goods risk, there is no uniform conclusion in the field of legislation or academia at present, and scholars hold their own opinions. Generally speaking, the seller's breach of contract affects the transfer of the risk of the goods, the buyer should not bear the destruction of the goods and a series of losses arising therefrom without fault, and the risk is returned to the seller; The other is that even if the seller violates the contract the buyer should bear the risk of the goods, but the seller may be required to bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract and use it as a remedy. The author takes a negative attitude towards the above two kinds of over-absolute risk determination rules, and puts forward a new risk burden standard. When the seller defaults and the risk occurs, the seller should bear the corresponding responsibility for the risk loss. On the contrary, only the degree of breach of contract to assume liability for breach of contract.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1;D997.1

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 周湘華;論貨物買賣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移[J];律師世界;1996年11期

2 嚴(yán)音莉;;淺析國(guó)際貿(mào)易中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2008年10期

3 曹冰;論買賣合同的貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移[J];河北法學(xué);2002年01期

4 常鳳梅;關(guān)于完善買賣合同貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移制度的研究[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年02期

5 常鳳梅;貨物風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移規(guī)則的立法例[J];遼寧稅務(wù)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

6 吳煒;;論國(guó)際貨物買賣中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2009年04期

7 王凱;;海上貨運(yùn)主要價(jià)格條款下的保險(xiǎn)利益問題分析[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年34期

8 李冬明;;淺談?dòng)⒚蕾I賣法中的拒收權(quán)[J];現(xiàn)代企業(yè)教育;2008年08期

9 張昕;FOB和CIF條件下風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移的若干特殊情況[J];對(duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào)實(shí)務(wù);1994年07期

10 孟雨;;從一案例看CIF條件下貨損時(shí)買方對(duì)索賠對(duì)象的選擇[J];昆明理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前10條

1 郭昆鵬;趙丹丹;白騰飛;于培明;;制藥企業(yè)新藥研發(fā)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的應(yīng)對(duì)策略[A];2009年中國(guó)藥學(xué)會(huì)藥事管理專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨“國(guó)家藥物政策與《藥品管理法》修訂研究”論壇論文文集[C];2009年

2 廉恩臣;;論國(guó)際貨物買賣中的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移[A];中國(guó)律師2000年大會(huì)論文精選（下卷）[C];2000年

3 何蒲明;;利用農(nóng)產(chǎn)品期貨市場(chǎng)探索糧食補(bǔ)貼新思路 基于美國(guó)的經(jīng)驗(yàn)[A];“三農(nóng)”問題與新農(nóng)村建設(shè)——湖北省首屆涉農(nóng)領(lǐng)域青年博士論壇論文集[C];2006年

4 李曉，

本文編號(hào)：2236209