本文選題：FOB貿(mào)易　切入點(diǎn)：實際托運(yùn)人　出處：《華東政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 我國作為出口貿(mào)易大國,FOB貿(mào)易占據(jù)80%的份額。然而由于買方負(fù)責(zé)簽訂貨物運(yùn)輸合同和指定船舶運(yùn)輸,相比CIF和CFR貿(mào)易,FOB賣方無疑面臨著更多的風(fēng)險。如何保護(hù)FOB貿(mào)易下賣方的利益成為本文研究的重點(diǎn)。 本文第一章主要闡述了FOB貿(mào)易下買賣雙方義務(wù)、FOB貿(mào)易在實踐運(yùn)用中應(yīng)注意的情況、以及賣方的法律地位。文章指出賣方的法律地位主要表現(xiàn)為賣方取得自己記載為托運(yùn)人的提單以及賣方取得他人記載為托運(yùn)人的提單這兩種情況。 第二章則闡述了賣方在FOB貿(mào)易下所面臨的主要風(fēng)險。包括:當(dāng)提單記載賣方以外的他人為托運(yùn)人時,賣方面臨無法結(jié)匯、喪失貨物控制權(quán)和喪失訴權(quán)的風(fēng)險;當(dāng)賣方持有記載自己為托運(yùn)人的提單時,因無船承運(yùn)人的介入,可能面臨無船承運(yùn)人欺詐的風(fēng)險。 第三章和第四章是本文的重點(diǎn),著重闡述了如何解決以上兩個方面的問題,從而保護(hù)我國FOB貿(mào)易下出口商的利益。第三章指出當(dāng)提單未記載賣方為托運(yùn)人時,賣方的風(fēng)險主要是由于我國法律對托運(yùn)人的規(guī)定存在缺陷而造成的。我國《海商法》規(guī)定了實際托運(yùn)人的定義“托運(yùn)人是將貨物交給承運(yùn)人或者與承運(yùn)人有關(guān)的人”,立法本意是將FOB貿(mào)易下的賣方納入到托運(yùn)人制度進(jìn)行保護(hù),但該制度在法律上沒有明確規(guī)定實際托運(yùn)人相應(yīng)的權(quán)利和義務(wù),在法律關(guān)系上又未能將它歸入海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同或提單法律關(guān)系,出現(xiàn)了法律規(guī)定和理論銜接的空白,未能起到保護(hù)FOB賣方的利益的作用。針對這一原因,本文指出了在目前法律制度下為保護(hù)FOB下賣方的利益,最好是將賣方載入提單托運(yùn)人欄內(nèi),使其實際托運(yùn)人地位得以彰顯。此外,結(jié)合最新通過的《鹿特丹規(guī)則》,筆者指出其中的“單證托運(yùn)人”并不能很好的保護(hù)FOB貿(mào)易下賣方的利益。 第四章主要分析無船承運(yùn)人介入時出現(xiàn)的欺詐現(xiàn)象。文章首先闡述FOB貿(mào)易下無船承運(yùn)人介入時的法律關(guān)系,指出無船承運(yùn)人欺詐主要是因為賣方所持有的無船承運(yùn)人提單不具有物權(quán)憑證性質(zhì),因此賣方不能有效控制貨物的物權(quán)。在解決對策上,筆者提出了賣方在實踐中要謹(jǐn)慎接收無船承運(yùn)人提單。具體措施是對境外無船承運(yùn)人的資質(zhì)進(jìn)行調(diào)查、要求貨代出具保函來保證憑正本提單放貨以及防范信用證中的軟條款。
[Abstract]:China, as a major exporter of foreign trade, accounts for 80% of the trade. However, since the buyer is responsible for signing the contract of carriage of goods and for the carriage of designated ships, Compared with CIF and CFR trade sellers are undoubtedly facing more risks. How to protect the seller's interests under FOB trade has become the focus of this paper. In the first chapter of this paper, the author mainly expounds the situations that should be paid attention to in the practical application of the FOB trade between the buyer and the seller. The article points out that the seller's legal status is mainly manifested in the seller's obtaining the bill of lading which is recorded as the shipper and the seller's obtaining the bill of lading recorded by others as the shipper's bill of lading. The second chapter expounds the main risks faced by the seller under the FOB trade, including: when the bill of lading records that the seller is the shipper, the seller faces the risk of being unable to settle foreign exchange, losing control of the goods and losing the right of action; When the seller holds the bill of lading which records himself as the shipper, he may face the risk of fraud because of the intervention of the NVOCC. Chapter three and Chapter 4th are the emphases of this paper, which focus on how to solve the above two problems in order to protect the interests of exporters under the FOB trade in China. Chapter three points out that when the seller is the shipper, the bill of lading does not record the seller. The seller's risk is mainly caused by the defects in the provisions of our law on shippers. Our Maritime Law defines the actual shipper as "the shipper is to deliver the goods to or in connection with the carrier." The purpose of the legislation is to protect the seller under the FOB trade into the shipper's regime, However, the system has not clearly stipulated the corresponding rights and obligations of the actual shipper in law, and failed to classify it into the legal relationship of the contract of carriage of goods by sea or the bill of lading in the legal relations. For this reason, it is pointed out that in order to protect the seller's interests under FOB under the current legal system, it is best to put the seller in the shipper's column of the bill of lading. In addition, combined with the newly adopted Rotterdam rules, the author points out that the "documentary shipper" can not protect the seller's interests under FOB trade. Chapter 4th mainly analyzes the fraud phenomenon when the non-ship carrier intervene. Firstly, this paper expounds the legal relationship of the non-ship carrier intervention under the FOB trade. It is pointed out that the fraud of NVOCC is mainly due to the fact that the bill of lading held by the seller does not have the nature of document of title, so the seller cannot effectively control the real right of the goods. The author puts forward that the seller should receive the NVOCC bill of lading carefully in practice. The concrete measures are to investigate the qualification of the NVOCC, to require the forwarder to issue a letter of guarantee to guarantee the delivery of the goods against the original bill of lading and to guard against the soft clauses in the letter of credit.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D996.19

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孟雨;;論FOB貿(mào)易術(shù)語下對發(fā)貨人利益的保護(hù)[J];北京化工大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2008年01期

2 胡婷婷;;貨代提單的法律性質(zhì)及其實踐問題略析[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2008年S2期

3 周恩良;FOB價格條件下托運(yùn)人的確定及其法律地位[J];對外經(jīng)貿(mào)實務(wù);1997年01期

4 馮文;;貿(mào)易術(shù)語FOB條件下的出口風(fēng)險解析[J];福建商業(yè)高等�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報;2009年02期

5 馬得懿;;FOB條件下賣方風(fēng)險問題研究——以托運(yùn)人制度為視角[J];法商研究;2008年04期

6 王黎明;;淺析貨運(yùn)代理人和無船承運(yùn)人的識別[J];法制與社會;2008年31期

7 何新明;從一起船貨糾紛看HOUSE B/L的應(yīng)用[J];國際貿(mào)易問題;2004年01期

8 楚風(fēng)華;;FOB價格條件下托運(yùn)人的認(rèn)定[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2006年04期

9 楊琴;FOB價格術(shù)語下賣方的風(fēng)險規(guī)避[J];黑龍江對外經(jīng)貿(mào);2005年01期

10 蔣正雄;論發(fā)貨人的法律地位[J];集裝箱化;2003年03期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 余曉漢;;關(guān)于解決《海商法》中托運(yùn)人問題的新思考——立法與司法處理建議及學(xué)術(shù)論證方法[A];中國律師2005年海商法研討會論文集[C];2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 于書紅;對海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同中第二種托運(yùn)人的思考[D];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院;2001年

2 孫永剛;論FOB術(shù)語下賣方在海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的法律地位[D];上海海事大學(xué);2006年

3 張毅斌;關(guān)于FOB下托運(yùn)人法律地位若干問題的研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2007年

4 黃建峰;國際海上貨物運(yùn)輸法律關(guān)系下貨方訴權(quán)制度比較研究[D];中國海洋大學(xué);2008年

5 徐英;《UNCITRAL運(yùn)輸法草案》下發(fā)貨人法律地位之研究[D];廈門大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號：1629313