【摘要】： FOB條件下的貿(mào)易欺詐已經(jīng)引起了廣泛的關(guān)注,與此相關(guān)的文章也非常多,這至少說(shuō)明研究這個(gè)問(wèn)題本身是有意義的,但同時(shí)也說(shuō)明要在這個(gè)問(wèn)題上有所突破是比較困難的,而筆者在學(xué)習(xí)聯(lián)合國(guó)貿(mào)易法委員會(huì)第三工作組正在制定中的《[全程或部分][海上]貨物運(yùn)輸公約草案》時(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn),其實(shí)FOB條件下賣方的貿(mào)易風(fēng)險(xiǎn)正是由于其過(guò)早的喪失了對(duì)貨物的控制權(quán),由此想到以此為題,將貨物控制權(quán)與FOB結(jié)合起來(lái)進(jìn)行討論,我國(guó)海商法律方面并無(wú)貨物控制權(quán)的規(guī)定,將貨物控制權(quán)寫(xiě)入我國(guó)海商法也是許多學(xué)者的愿望,如果立法過(guò)程中能將貨物控制權(quán)與FOB術(shù)語(yǔ)結(jié)合起來(lái)進(jìn)行考慮,產(chǎn)生的效果可能會(huì)更好。 本文的第一章主要對(duì)本文涉及的概念做一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)要的介紹,包括貨物控制權(quán)和FOB術(shù)語(yǔ)的含義及其特點(diǎn).該章第一節(jié)通過(guò)貨物控制權(quán)與中途停運(yùn)權(quán)的比較,明確貨物控制權(quán)制度的目的及其特點(diǎn),從而顯示其對(duì)于FOB條件下賣方的重要意義;第二節(jié)在介紹FOB術(shù)語(yǔ)特點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)FOB條件下的貿(mào)易欺詐進(jìn)行了分析,從而明確造成賣方風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的關(guān)鍵在于FOB條件下的賣方在未獲取付款之前過(guò)早地失去了對(duì)貨物的控制權(quán)。 第二章和第三章是本文的重點(diǎn)。有關(guān)FOB條件下賣方的貨物控制權(quán),筆者主要是從兩種制度出發(fā)進(jìn)行論述,一是貨物控制權(quán)制度,二是提單制度。貫穿其中的則是國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣合同與海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同的密切關(guān)系。在第二章中,筆者一方面從FOB貿(mào)易術(shù)語(yǔ)和貨物控制權(quán)的制度設(shè)計(jì)出發(fā),從正面論證賣方應(yīng)該享有貨物控制權(quán)。另一方面從海上貨物運(yùn)輸合同的角度,認(rèn)為FOB條件下的賣方不應(yīng)被排除在運(yùn)輸合同當(dāng)事人之外,從而從反面論證否認(rèn)FOB條件下賣方貨物控制權(quán)的理由不能成立。第三章則是從提單的簽發(fā)及記載方面論述如何保障FOB條件下的貨物控制權(quán)并對(duì)上述UNCITRAL《草案》的相關(guān)規(guī)定進(jìn)行了分析,得出的結(jié)論是FOB條件下的賣方有權(quán)獲取實(shí)際承運(yùn)人簽發(fā)的提單并在提單上表明其托運(yùn)人身份。 第四章則是在前文論述的基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)我國(guó)的相關(guān)立法提出自己的一點(diǎn)建議。
[Abstract]:Trade fraud under the FOB condition has attracted extensive attention, and there are many related articles. This at least shows that it is meaningful to study this problem, but it also shows that it is difficult to make a breakthrough on this issue. While studying the draft Convention on the Carriage of goods [wholly or partly] [by Sea] that is being developed by working Group III of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), In fact, under the condition of FOB, the seller's trade risk is precisely due to its premature loss of the control right to the goods. Therefore, it comes to the idea that the right of control of the goods should be combined with the FOB for discussion. There is no regulation of the right of control of the goods in the maritime commercial law of our country. It is also the wish of many scholars to write the right of control of goods into the maritime law of our country. If we can combine the right of control of goods with the term of FOB in the process of legislation, the effect may be better. The first chapter gives a brief introduction to the concepts involved in this paper, including the meaning and characteristics of the term "control right of goods" and "FOB". The first section of this chapter clarifies the purpose and characteristics of the control system of goods through the comparison between the right of control of goods and the right of stoppage in midway, so as to show its significance to the seller under the condition of FOB. The second section introduces the characteristics of FOB terms. This paper analyzes the trade fraud under the FOB condition and makes it clear that the key to the seller's risk is that the seller under the FOB condition loses the control right of the goods prematurely before the payment is obtained. The second and third chapters are the focus of this paper. About the seller's right of control of goods under the condition of FOB, the author mainly discusses from two systems, one is the system of control of goods, the other is the system of bill of lading. There is a close relationship between the international contract for the sale of goods and the contract for the carriage of goods by sea. In the second chapter, on the one hand, the author starts from the system design of FOB terms and the right of control of goods, from the positive argument that the seller should enjoy the right of control of goods. On the other hand, from the point of view of the contract of carriage of goods by sea, the seller under the FOB condition should not be excluded from the contract of carriage, so the reason of denying the seller's right of control of the goods under the FOB condition can not be established. The third chapter discusses how to protect the right of control of goods under the condition of FOB from the aspect of issuance and record of bill of lading, and analyzes the relevant provisions of the above-mentioned draft of UNCITRAL. The conclusion is that the seller under the condition of FOB has the right to obtain the bill of lading issued by the actual carrier and to identify his shipper on the bill of lading. The fourth chapter is on the basis of the previous discussion on the relevant legislation of our country put forward some suggestions.
【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】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前4條

1 司玉琢;UNCITRAL運(yùn)輸法(草案)難點(diǎn)問(wèn)題研究[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2003年01期

2 劉宇,李瑞京;論FOB條件下發(fā)貨人權(quán)利的完善[J];世界海運(yùn);2005年06期

3 司玉琢;論發(fā)貨人的權(quán)利、義務(wù)和責(zé)任[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;2001年00期

4 鄔先江,陳海波;論CMI運(yùn)輸法草案有關(guān)控制權(quán)的規(guī)定[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;2001年00期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 裘劍鋒;實(shí)際托運(yùn)人法律制度研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2002年

2 童玉梅;海運(yùn)中途停運(yùn)權(quán)研究[D];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院;2002年

3 李莉;貨物買(mǎi)賣合同與貨物海運(yùn)合同銜接問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2163882