【摘要】： 滯期費(fèi)糾紛是航次租船下發(fā)生頻率最頻繁的糾紛態(tài)勢(shì)之一。本文從滯期費(fèi)爭議所涉及的滯期費(fèi)的概念與性質(zhì)、計(jì)算、索賠與時(shí)效等幾個(gè)重要方面著手,結(jié)合最新判例,深入闡述航次租船業(yè)務(wù)中滯期費(fèi)相關(guān)的一些法律問題。 除引言和結(jié)論外,本文共分四章。 第一章是滯期費(fèi)與延期損失辨析,主要闡述滯期費(fèi)與延期損失的概念、性質(zhì)及其二者的區(qū)別。滯期費(fèi)是在航次租船合同中約定承租人因未能在規(guī)定的裝卸期限內(nèi)完成貨物裝卸作業(yè)產(chǎn)生了船舶延誤而向出租人支付的一筆款項(xiàng),它是一種約定的損害賠償。滯期費(fèi)之所以不是違約金不是因?yàn)槠洳痪哂袘土P性,而是滯期費(fèi)的支付需要出租人存在實(shí)際的損失,但由于其具有約定性,所以出租人對(duì)于損失無需舉證。滯期費(fèi)不同于延滯損失,延滯損失是指某些原因使船舶留滯在港口或使船舶航行時(shí)間延長而應(yīng)由承租人賠償給出租人的一種非約定性損失賠償,它一般要高于滯期費(fèi)。 第二章是滯期費(fèi)的計(jì)算,本章主要闡述與滯期時(shí)間緊密聯(lián)系的裝卸時(shí)間的計(jì)算,包括裝卸時(shí)間的起算、中斷與除外條款;以及滯期費(fèi)的計(jì)算。筆者認(rèn)為預(yù)先遞交的通知書無效不能起算裝卸時(shí)間;在沒有遞交裝卸準(zhǔn)備就緒通知書情況下,裝卸時(shí)間從實(shí)際裝貨之時(shí)起算;聯(lián)檢手續(xù)不影響裝卸準(zhǔn)備就緒通知書的遞交。 第三章是滯期費(fèi)的索賠,租船合同下承租人是滯期費(fèi)的責(zé)任人,但是提單的出現(xiàn),使滯期費(fèi)的問題更加復(fù)雜,承租人不是唯一的責(zé)任人,在租船合同并入提單的情況下,提單下的各方當(dāng)事人都有可能需要對(duì)滯期費(fèi)負(fù)責(zé),包括托運(yùn)人、提單持有人或者收貨人。留置權(quán)是出租人進(jìn)行滯期費(fèi)索賠的重要途徑,責(zé)任終止與留置權(quán)是共存一體的,如果出租人沒有一個(gè)有效能夠行使的留置權(quán),承租人的責(zé)任也不終止。出租人應(yīng)正確行使留置權(quán)�；谖覈逗Ｉ谭ā分械�87關(guān)于留置權(quán)的規(guī)定不甚合理,筆者建議《海商法》修改時(shí),和《合同法》中關(guān)于留置權(quán)的規(guī)定相一致,同時(shí)出租人在索賠的過程中須注意其時(shí)效的問題。 第四章是完善我國滯期費(fèi)制度的建議,筆者建議滯期費(fèi)制度應(yīng)該明確規(guī)定滯期費(fèi)及其相關(guān)概念、裝卸時(shí)間的計(jì)算、留置權(quán)的行使和時(shí)效等問題,并提出制度構(gòu)想。
[Abstract]:Demurrage dispute is one of the most frequent disputes under voyage charter. Starting from several important aspects, such as the concept and nature of demurrage fee involved in the dispute of demurrage fee, calculation, claim and limitation, combined with the latest cases, this paper expounds some legal issues related to demurrage fee in voyage charter business. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into four chapters. The first chapter is the discrimination between demurrage fee and deferred loss, which mainly expounds the concept, nature and difference between demurrage fee and deferred loss. Demurrage fee is a sum of money paid by the charterer to the shipowner for failing to complete the cargo loading and unloading operation within the prescribed loading and unloading time. It is a kind of agreed damages. The reason why demurrage fee is not breach of contract is not because it is not punitive, but the payment of demurrage fee requires the lessor to have the actual loss, but because of its contractual nature, the lessor does not need to prove the loss. The demurrage fee is different from the delay loss, which refers to a kind of non-contractual loss compensation which should be compensated by the charterer to the lessor for some reasons that make the ship stay at the port or prolong the sailing time of the ship, which is generally higher than the demurrage fee. The second chapter is the calculation of demurrage fee. This chapter mainly expounds the calculation of loading and unloading time which is closely related to the demurrage time, including the starting calculation of loading and unloading time, interruption and exception clause, and the calculation of demurrage fee. The author thinks that the advance notice is invalid and can not start the loading and unloading time; in the absence of the loading and unloading preparation notice, the loading and unloading time starts from the actual loading time; the joint inspection procedure does not affect the submission of the loading and unloading preparation notice. The third chapter is the claim for demurrage fee. Under the charter party, the charterer is the responsible person for demurrage fee, but the emergence of bill of lading makes the problem of demurrage fee more complicated. The charterer is not the only person responsible. Under the condition that the charter contract is incorporated into the bill of lading, All parties under the bill of lading may be liable for demurrage fees, including the shipper, the holder of the bill of lading or the consignee. Lien is an important way for the lessor to claim demurrage. Liability termination and lien coexist. If the lessor does not have an effective lien, the lessee's liability will not terminate. The lessor shall exercise the lien correctly. In view of the fact that the provisions of lien in Maritime Law 87 of our country are not very reasonable, the author suggests that when the Maritime Law is amended, it is consistent with the provisions of contract Law on lien. At the same time, the lessor should pay attention to the limitation of time in the process of claim. The fourth chapter is the suggestion of perfecting the demurrage fee system in our country. The author suggests that the demurrage fee system should clearly stipulate the demurrage fee and its related concepts, the calculation of loading and unloading time, the exercise and limitation of lien, and puts forward the system conception.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廈門大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6;D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前3條

1 胡輝;;兩港平衡運(yùn)作,降低船舶滯期費(fèi)的思考[A];自主創(chuàng)新 實(shí)現(xiàn)物流工程的持續(xù)與科學(xué)發(fā)展——第八屆物流工程學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2008年

2 陳雄;萬位水;徐心和;;車間作業(yè)調(diào)度的方法綜述[A];1997中國控制與決策學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];1997年

3 馬春紅;;梁家煤礦主提升箕斗改造方案研究[A];山東省煤炭學(xué)會(huì)2006年年會(huì)論文集[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 案例編寫人 湖北省高級(jí)人民法院 余俊;內(nèi)河期租合約中滯期費(fèi)與滯期損失的司法識(shí)別[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

2 苗濤明;滯期費(fèi)的結(jié)算[N];國際商報(bào);2002年

3 北京昌明律師事務(wù)所 蔣五四;如何約定滯期費(fèi)和船期損失的關(guān)系[N];國際經(jīng)貿(mào)消息;2000年

4 記者 鄭夢(mèng)婕;方便企業(yè)集中申報(bào)滯期費(fèi)用[N];汕頭日?qǐng)?bào);2010年

5 中國海事仲裁委員會(huì)副秘書長 蔡鴻達(dá);一起滯期費(fèi)仲裁案例[N];國際商報(bào);2000年

6 中;美國集裝箱滯期費(fèi)上漲[N];國際商報(bào);2004年

7 上海市高級(jí)人民法院 陳雷;一起航次租船合同延滯費(fèi)糾紛案[N];國際商報(bào);2006年

8 楊玉婷;CIF中附加卸貨港滯期費(fèi)條款應(yīng)注意的問題[N];國際商報(bào);2004年

9 肖靜邋李盈芳;確保運(yùn)費(fèi)回收 維護(hù)公司利益[N];中國遠(yuǎn)洋報(bào);2008年

10 范建生;煤里掘“金”[N];中國石化報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 殷鵬濤;論裝卸時(shí)間和滯期費(fèi)條款對(duì)于買賣合同的價(jià)值[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年

2 朱民強(qiáng);裝卸時(shí)間的起算[D];中國政法大學(xué);2004年

3 龔育華;航次租約下滯期費(fèi)相關(guān)法律問題研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2003年

4 李R，

本文編號(hào)：2482087