本文選題：FOB貿(mào)易的賣方　切入點(diǎn)：托運(yùn)人　出處：《上海海事大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】： 近幾年,隨著改革開放的不斷深入,我國的FOB貿(mào)易逐年增多,因而關(guān)于FOB下的一些問題也日益顯現(xiàn)出來,其中,最有代表性的無疑是“根據(jù)FOB貿(mào)易合同產(chǎn)生的國際海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的托運(yùn)人的法律地位”這個(gè)問題,而這個(gè)問題又主要集中在兩個(gè)方面:第一,是否應(yīng)該將FOB貿(mào)易的賣方視托運(yùn)人;第二,無論是否將FOB貿(mào)易的賣方視托運(yùn)人,FOB貿(mào)易的買賣雙方在國際海上貨物運(yùn)輸?shù)恼麄�(gè)環(huán)節(jié)應(yīng)該承擔(dān)怎樣的權(quán)利和義務(wù)。 針對這個(gè)問題,我國《海商法》在制定的時(shí)候,出于種種原因和考慮,在其第42條第3項(xiàng)中賦予了FOB中賣方托運(yùn)人的資格,卻因此導(dǎo)致實(shí)踐中各個(gè)部門產(chǎn)生了一系列的問題甚至混亂。例如,理論界對此頗有爭議,而司法部門又不能形成統(tǒng)一的裁判,這又進(jìn)一步加劇了航運(yùn)中各方當(dāng)事人的困惑和抱怨。 有鑒于此,筆者翻閱了國內(nèi)外一些學(xué)者的著作以及國外的一些判例后認(rèn)為,兩種托運(yùn)人的規(guī)定缺乏法理基礎(chǔ),而且制訂的時(shí)候預(yù)見性不夠。所以,不應(yīng)把FOB中賣方視為托運(yùn)人,而應(yīng)該對其在海上運(yùn)輸中的法律定位重新定位。綜合賣方在整個(gè)貿(mào)易和運(yùn)輸中的特點(diǎn)及作用來看,參考我國《民法通則》及《合同法》的立法規(guī)定,筆者以為:賣方交貨給承運(yùn)人的行為實(shí)際上是一種保管提存行為,即,賣方和承運(yùn)人之間是保管提存法律關(guān)系。理由在于:第一,符合保管提存的概念及特點(diǎn);第二,和法律規(guī)定并行不悖;第三,是“提單法律關(guān)系”理論的衍生。 筆者斗膽提出了一種全新的設(shè)想后,進(jìn)一步研究了在這種假定的法律框架下幾個(gè)在實(shí)踐中比較常見的問題并提出了自己不成熟的觀點(diǎn)。其中包括:提單記載問題;承運(yùn)人聽從指示的問題;托運(yùn)人的識別問題;運(yùn)輸過程中FOB買賣方對承運(yùn)人的權(quán)利問題;目的港無人提貨時(shí)由誰承擔(dān)責(zé)任的問題;承運(yùn)人無單放貨時(shí)該向誰承擔(dān)責(zé)任以及承擔(dān)什么責(zé)任的問題。 基于以上的分析,筆者對我國《海商法》的修改也提出了一點(diǎn)意見,目的是希望以立法的形式明確托運(yùn)人的范圍,同時(shí)對幾種常見法律問題中的各方當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利和責(zé)任進(jìn)行確定,從而使之符合我國經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展及航運(yùn)實(shí)務(wù)的一般需要,符合商法確認(rèn)交易順利、可靠、安全的理念,方便國際貿(mào)易和航運(yùn)實(shí)務(wù)中各有關(guān)當(dāng)事人的商業(yè)運(yùn)作。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the deepening of reform and opening up, China's FOB trade has been increasing year by year. Therefore, some problems about FOB are also emerging day by day, among which, There is no doubt that the most representative issue is "the legal status of shippers in the international carriage of goods by sea under the FOB trade contract", which is mainly focused on two aspects: first, Whether the seller of FOB trade should be regarded as shipper or not, whether the seller of FOB trade should be regarded as shipper or not, what rights and obligations should be assumed by the buyer and seller in the whole part of the international carriage of goods by sea. In order to solve this problem, when the Maritime Law of our country was formulated, for various reasons and considerations, the seller's shipper qualification was conferred on the FOB in Article 42 (3). This has led to a series of problems and even confusion in various departments in practice. For example, the theorists are quite controversial about this, and the judiciary cannot form a unified decision. This further exacerbated the confusion and complaints of the parties involved in shipping. In view of this, the author, after reading the works of some scholars at home and abroad and some foreign cases, thinks that the provisions of the two shippers lack a legal basis and are not formulated with sufficient foresight. The seller in FOB should not be regarded as a shipper, but should be repositioned in the legal position of the seller in maritime transport. In view of the characteristics and functions of the seller in the whole trade and transportation, Referring to the legislative provisions of China's General principles of Civil Law and contract Law, the author thinks that the seller's delivery to the carrier is actually an act of custody and deposit, that is, The legal relationship between seller and carrier lies in the following reasons: firstly, it conforms to the concept and characteristics of custody and deposit; second, it is compatible with the legal provisions; third, it is the derivation of the theory of "legal relationship of bill of lading". After putting forward a completely new idea, the author further studies several common problems in practice and puts forward his own immature viewpoints, including: the recording of bills of lading; The problem of the carrier obeying instructions; the problem of the identification of the shipper; the question of the rights of the FOB buyer and seller to the carrier in the course of carriage; the question of who is liable when the port of destination is not taken delivery; The question of to whom and to whom the carrier should be held responsible for the delivery of goods without documents. Based on the above analysis, the author also puts forward some opinions on the amendment of China's Maritime Law. The purpose is to clarify the scope of the shipper by way of legislation. At the same time, the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in several common legal problems are determined to meet the general needs of China's economic development and shipping practice, and the commercial law to confirm the concept of smooth, reliable and safe transactions. Facilitate the commercial operation of the parties involved in international trade and shipping practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D922.294

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

中國博士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前1條

1 余妙宏;海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同中托運(yùn)人法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

中國碩士學(xué)位論文全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前6條

1 陳莉莉;論FOB賣方在海上貨物運(yùn)輸下的利益保護(hù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 于秀平;淺議目的港無人提貨的法律問題[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年

3 周潔;單證托運(yùn)人法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年

4 王玉德;我國《海商法》托運(yùn)人識別及其權(quán)利義務(wù)研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2011年

5 楊晶;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下托運(yùn)人義務(wù)強(qiáng)化之研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

6 董蔚;我國海商法中托運(yùn)人法律制度完善探究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號：1644157