發(fā)布時間：2018-07-12 21:19

  本文選題：解除權 + 租金支付　； 參考：《上海海事大學》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 定期租船合同是合同法領域中一種比較特殊的法律現(xiàn)象。其作為海商法律的重要組成部分，同時又受各國合同法的調(diào)整，因此，包含許多復雜的法律問題。合同解除問題即為其中之一。定期租船合同中包含眾多解除權，本文將論述焦點放在租金支付條款下出租人的解除權。在論述過程中，本文除了采用一般的敘述與議論的論述方法外，主要比較了我國與英國在這一領域的法律規(guī)定與合同解釋的異同。前者是我國的國內(nèi)法，而后者，由于眾所周知的原因，應該可以認為代表了國際上在該領域的主流觀點。 本文主要分為四個部分，分別構成了本文主體的四章。 第一章論述了英國法與中國法下行使題述解除權的依據(jù)。通過對兩國法律中的合同解除制度作了逐層、條理清晰的分析之后，將題述解除權的性質(zhì)歸屬為合同約定的解除權。另外，根據(jù)大陸法對權利的特有分類，題述的解除權依其作用在性質(zhì)上又可歸為形成權。通過第一章對題述解除權的定性分析，為后文探討其行使時的具體問題提供了重要的理論基礎。 第二章主要介紹了題述解除權的行使條件。根據(jù)第一章所述，該解除權為約定解除權，，因此在論述其行使條件時，主要是總結了各標準定期租船格式的相關條款，所涉及的標準租船格式有1946年和1993年紐約土產(chǎn)格式、波爾的姆定期租船格式以及中租期租格式。從中歸納了兩個行使題述解除權的條件：一為租金沒有準時支付；二為租金沒有足額支付，并分別進行了詳細的論述。 第三章從上述兩章論述的內(nèi)容出發(fā)，逐一討論了題述解除權的行使方式、行使時間，并就行使過程中可能產(chǎn)生的問題作了深入的研究，這其中涉及英國法下重要的“棄權和禁止反言”理論，也涉及到中國合同法對解除權行使的相關規(guī)定。 第四章致力于討論定期租船合同中租金支付條款下合同解除權行使的法律后果。在論述時將討論重點放在行使題述解除權時船上有載貨的情形，并根據(jù)所簽發(fā)的提單是出租人提單還是承租人提單進行分別論述。在簽發(fā)出租人提單的情形下，著重分析了簽發(fā)運費預付提單和運費到付提單的不同法律后果；在簽發(fā)承租人提單的情形下，著重論述了承運人識別問題和我國海商法下實際承運人制度。本章最后就出租人行使題述解除權后的損害賠償問題作了一定的討論。
[Abstract]:Term charter party is a special legal phenomenon in the field of contract law. As an important part of maritime law, it is also regulated by the contract law of various countries. Therefore, it contains many complicated legal problems. The question of termination of contract is one of them. There are many rights of rescission in the term charter party. This paper will focus on the lessor's right of discharge under the rent payment clause. In the process of discussion, in addition to the general narration and argumentation, this paper mainly compares the similarities and differences between China and Britain in this field of legal provisions and contract interpretation. The former is China's domestic law, while the latter, for reasons known to all, should represent the mainstream international views in this field. This article is mainly divided into four parts, respectively constitute the main body of the four chapters. The first chapter discusses the basis of the exercise of the right of rescission under English law and Chinese law. By analyzing the system of rescission of contract layer by layer in the law of the two countries, the nature of the right of rescission is classified as the right of rescission as stipulated in the contract. In addition, according to the special classification of rights in continental law, the right of rescission can be classified as forming right according to its nature. The first chapter provides an important theoretical basis for the discussion of the specific problems in the exercise of the right of rescission. The second chapter mainly introduces the exercise conditions of the right of rescission. According to the first chapter, this right of discharge is an agreed right of discharge, so when discussing the conditions for its exercise, it mainly summarizes the relevant provisions of the standard time charter format, which involves the standard charter form of New York in 1946 and 1993. Bohr's time charter format and mid-term charter format. This paper summarizes two conditions for exercising the right of rescission: one is that the rent is not paid on time; the other is that the rent is not paid in full and is discussed in detail respectively. The third chapter starts from the contents of the above two chapters, discusses one by one the way and time of the exercise of the right of rescission, and makes an in-depth study on the problems that may arise in the course of the exercise. This involves the important theory of abstaining and estoppel under English law, and the relevant provisions of Chinese contract law on the exercise of rescission right. Chapter four is devoted to discussing the legal consequence of the right of rescission under rent payment clause in term charter party. The discussion focuses on the situation that there is cargo on board when the right of discharge is exercised, and is discussed separately according to whether the bill of lading issued is the lessor's bill of lading or the charterer's bill of lading. In the case of issuing the lessor's bill of lading, the different legal consequences of issuing the freight prepaid bill of lading and the freight to pay bill of lading are emphatically analyzed. The problem of carrier identification and the actual carrier system under China's maritime law are emphatically discussed. At the end of this chapter, the problem of compensation for damages after the lessor exercises the right of rescission is discussed.
【學位授予單位】：上海海事大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2007
【分類號】：D996.1;D923

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前9條

1 林愛民;論提單中光船租賃條款的效力[J];當代法學;2002年07期

2 楊大明;論期租合同下的租金支付與撤船[J];大連海事大學學報(社會科學版);2003年03期

3 楊明,鄭云峰;定期租船合同中租金的確定[J];世界海運;2003年04期

4 賀洪龍;張鵬飛;李海初;;承運人識別的法律問題[J];世界海運;2006年05期

5 蔣正雄;海商合同留置權析[J];上海海運學院學報;2003年02期

6 馬晶晶,姚洪秀;實際承運人的若干法律問題[J];上海海事大學學報;2005年01期

7 劉麗麗;合同解除權的行使[J];武漢理工大學學報(社會科學版);2004年06期

8 汪張林,杜凱;論合同解除權的行使[J];西南政法大學學報;2005年01期

9 韓立新;國際海上貨物運輸中實際承運人及其責任的認定[J];中國海商法年刊;1997年00期

相關博士學位論文 前1條

1 郝磊;合同解除權制度研究[D];中國政法大學;2005年

本文編號：2118496