本文關(guān)鍵詞： 無單放貨 若干 問題 明晰　出處：《上海海事大學(xué)》2003年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在航運(yùn)實(shí)踐中，由于船舶周轉(zhuǎn)的快速性與提單流轉(zhuǎn)滯后的時(shí)間差，承運(yùn)人常常被迫憑保函無單放貨。據(jù)統(tǒng)計(jì)，班輪運(yùn)輸中存在15％的無單放貨現(xiàn)象，租船運(yùn)輸能到達(dá)50％，某些重要商品如礦物、油的交易中高達(dá)100％。 承運(yùn)人在海上運(yùn)輸中負(fù)有向提單持有人交貨的義務(wù)，須對(duì)其未憑單交貨的行為負(fù)責(zé)。據(jù)不完全統(tǒng)計(jì)，在所有無單放貨的訴案中，承運(yùn)人(代理人)被判決承擔(dān)責(zé)任的占90％以上。 本文應(yīng)用比較研究和判例研究的方法，從承運(yùn)人貨物交付義務(wù)入手，提出了適當(dāng)確認(rèn)提單“物權(quán)憑證”之功能，將運(yùn)輸中的貨物交付和買賣合同有機(jī)結(jié)合起來，同時(shí)確立承運(yùn)人在記名提單下也須憑單交貨，對(duì)于正確分析和處理無單放貨是十分有益的。 對(duì)無單放貨性質(zhì)，目前存在著“違約說”、“侵權(quán)說”和“責(zé)任競合說”。盡管最高法院在粵海公司與倉碼公司、特發(fā)公司一案中已經(jīng)明確認(rèn)定無單放貨為違約，但判決在我國沒有法律約束力。筆者贊成無單放貨的性質(zhì)屬于違約和侵權(quán)的競合，當(dāng)事人對(duì)此有權(quán)選擇以違約或侵權(quán)之訴來提起訴訟，并認(rèn)為違約之訴更具優(yōu)越性。 關(guān)于無單放貨是否是違法行為，有觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為無單放貨違背了《海商法》第七十一條規(guī)定的“憑提單交付貨物”的法定義務(wù)，因而屬違法行為。筆者認(rèn)為憑正本提單交付貨物僅是承運(yùn)人的合同義務(wù)，是一種保證責(zé)任，不是法律上的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定。 無單放貨責(zé)任承擔(dān)的總的原則是：承運(yùn)人對(duì)無單放貨承擔(dān)全部責(zé)任，，只要沒有免責(zé)事由，應(yīng)負(fù)損害賠償責(zé)任而不論主觀上有無過錯(cuò)。文章認(rèn)為，在原告提起無單
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉麗芳;無單放貨若干法律問題研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2007年

本文編號(hào)：1518960