3429.B 論提單轉(zhuǎn)讓與貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移之關(guān)系文獻及翻譯

1、提單的交付與貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移的法律適用摘要 .由于各國在提單的交付是否導致貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移方面的規(guī)定不一致.因此.在涉外提單法律關(guān)系中.就需要進行法律選擇以確定提單的交付是否能導致貨物所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)移國際社會對于提單的交付與貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移的法律適用主要有種立法模式中國國際私法對于提單的性質(zhì)可以適用當事人選擇的法律.在當事人沒有選擇時用當事人的營業(yè)所所在國法提單的轉(zhuǎn)讓應適用提單轉(zhuǎn)讓時的所在地法關(guān)鍵詞 .提單 .貨物所有權(quán) .轉(zhuǎn)移 .法律適用提單是用以證明海上貨物運輸合同和貨物已經(jīng)由承運人接收或裝船.以及承運人保證據(jù)以交付貨物的單證為了便利國際貿(mào)易的進行.大多數(shù)國家都將提單視為一種所有權(quán)憑證.提單能代表提

2、單項下貨物的所有權(quán).因此.提單的交付能導致貨物所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)移 但也有的國家認為.提單的交付并不必然導致貨物所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)移基于這種沖突.在涉外提單法律關(guān)系中.就需要進行法律選擇.以確定提單的交付是否能導致貨物所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)移一 提單的交付與貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移法律適用的比較法考察提單的交付與貨物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移的法律適用主要涉及兩個問題.即提單是否為所有權(quán)憑證的法律適用和提單轉(zhuǎn)讓的法律適用對于這兩個問題.各國的規(guī)定有所不同在澳大利亞.持有提單本身即表明提單持有人對貨物享有財產(chǎn)權(quán).提單代表著對貨物的權(quán)利雖然占有提單授權(quán)占有人占有貨物.但貨物所有權(quán)問題最終由一般的動產(chǎn)法律規(guī)則支配.換句話說.提單是所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移的象征.而不

3、是貨物所有權(quán)據(jù)以轉(zhuǎn)移的實際工具在國際貿(mào)易中.該理由即足以將提單視為所有權(quán)憑證在澳大利亞.通常認為提單是所有權(quán)憑證的理由是基于/商人習慣0.這一詞最早來源于古老的英國判例.由于這是一項國際性的習慣.因 此對于這一問題的沖突很少基于此.至今未有關(guān)于澳大利亞法院要求考慮由什么法律支配提單作為所有權(quán)憑證的功能的案例報道不過.可以設想在一些案件中有必要考慮提單是否及如何作為所有權(quán)憑證這一先決法律沖突問題如果有一批運往或者來自其國內(nèi)法不將提單視為所有權(quán)憑證的國家的國際貨物銷售.澳大利亞法院可能必須考慮是否適用那一個國家的法律在這種情形中.澳大利亞法院可能會將其自己的法律作為法院地法適用其理由是承認習慣屬于

4、程序問題.而這一問題通常由法院地法支配澳大利亞法院地法承認將提單視為所有權(quán)憑證的/商人實踐0.也許這就是這一問題的終結(jié)如果法院把該問題視為實質(zhì)問題.而不是程序問題.則有可能適用通常的法律選擇規(guī)則 ) ) )物之所在地法.即貨物于轉(zhuǎn)移時所處的地方的法律如適用這一規(guī)則.確 定提單性質(zhì)和功能的準據(jù)法將是提單在交易發(fā)生時所處的國家的法律也支持這一觀點.他認為.涉及到提單的交易由交易時提單所處的地方的法律支配 .即使是提單項下的貨物仍處于運輸途中.在奧利奧地利聯(lián)邦沖突法第 . 條的規(guī)定是強制性的.據(jù)此.它們適用于通過提單及其他運輸單證而產(chǎn)生的貨物所有權(quán)的轉(zhuǎn)移奧地利聯(lián)邦沖突法第 . 條規(guī)定.有體產(chǎn)物的取得

5、和喪失.包括占有應該依導致取得和喪失的事實狀態(tài)完成時有體物所處的國家的法律支配 在加拿大.如果提單或者其他運輸單據(jù)在發(fā)布的時候依貨物所處的地方的法律被視為所有權(quán)憑證.則它們在加拿大將被視為所有權(quán)憑證 所有權(quán)憑證轉(zhuǎn)移的有效性由單證轉(zhuǎn)移時的所在地法支配在丹麥.當可轉(zhuǎn)讓提單發(fā)布的時候.是由提單的所在地而不是由貨物的所在地.決定與賣方和買方的債權(quán)人有關(guān)的準據(jù)法.其理由是提單是一種所有權(quán)憑證當有關(guān)貨物的交易的達成與提單無關(guān)時.糾紛發(fā)生時貨物的所在地法可能是確定準據(jù)法的因素.除非買方意識到貨物是由提單所代表如果不同提單之間發(fā)生沖突.則發(fā)生沖突時貨物所處的地方的法律將被推定為確定準據(jù)法如果對單據(jù)的性質(zhì)發(fā)生爭

6、議.則將由適用于基礎法律關(guān)系的法律確定單據(jù)的確切性質(zhì)當發(fā)布不可轉(zhuǎn)讓的提單時.則適用沖突發(fā)生時貨物的所在地法在英國.將由憑證發(fā)布時貨物所處的地方的法律決定某一憑證是否是所有權(quán)憑證法國于 . 年 . 月 . 日頒布的海事法明確規(guī)定了法國法應當適用的情形及適用于離開或者到達法國港.而不由國際條約支配的海事運輸 一般認為.這一原則是以公共政策為基礎制定.據(jù)此.如果裝貨港或者目的港在法國.則當事人不能以一種與這些明確排除適用外國法的規(guī)則相違背的方式訂立合同如果法國法得到適用.則作為所有權(quán)憑證的提單將賦予它的占有者對有關(guān)貨物行使權(quán)利雖然. 年法國法并未明確表明提單是一種所有權(quán)憑證 .但 大多數(shù)著名學者都認

7、為提單具有這一地位在德國 .必須區(qū)分諸如提單之類的可轉(zhuǎn)讓有價憑證和這些憑證所代表的權(quán)利或者資產(chǎn)憑證本身的轉(zhuǎn)讓受憑證所在地法支配而這種轉(zhuǎn)讓對憑證所代表的權(quán)利或者資產(chǎn)所產(chǎn)生的法律效果則由適用于特許權(quán)利的法律所支配對于有關(guān)貨物所有權(quán)的憑證. 是由貨物所在地法支配在意大利.當要確定代表貨物的提單的性質(zhì)時.提單也由提單中所規(guī)定的法律支配如果提單中沒有提到準據(jù)法.由于提單依意大利法主要被視為一種所有權(quán)憑證 .依 . 年 . 月 . 日經(jīng)改革的意大利國 際私法.將適用提單被發(fā)布的國家的法律 .在日本.當 諸如提單之類的貨物所有權(quán)憑證的當事人在憑證中指定了特定法律作為準據(jù)法時.則該被選擇的法律將支配單據(jù)的性質(zhì)

8、和功能如果沒有這種準據(jù)法條款 .則所適用的法律將依日本基本法律適用法的基本規(guī)則確定據(jù)此.日本法院將首先適用支配基礎運輸合同的法律.東京地區(qū)法院如果這一法律不明確.則法院將考慮合同締結(jié)地等因素 .以 此確定當事人的意圖.日本基本法律適用法第.條依荷蘭國際私法.對于某一憑證是否能稱為所有權(quán)憑證的問題.由憑證簽發(fā)人的營業(yè)地所在國法律支配對于憑證上的所有權(quán)如何轉(zhuǎn)移的問題.適用憑證轉(zhuǎn)移時所在地法應該注意的是.原則上.貨物所有權(quán)由憑證所在地法支配而不管貨物本身位于何處據(jù)此.在已對貨物發(fā)布所有權(quán)憑證時.并不會發(fā)生對適用于運輸中的貨物的法律不明確的問題有可能某人主張在提單范圍之外.直接取得了依提單運輸?shù)膶ω浳?/p>

9、的權(quán)利如果該人是基于善意而不知道提單的存在的話.則該人是否確實取得該權(quán)利將由貨物所在地法支配.否則將優(yōu)先適用支配提單的法律。依俄羅斯法轉(zhuǎn)讓提單或其他所有權(quán)憑證被認為是與轉(zhuǎn)讓貨物等同.俄羅斯聯(lián)邦民法典第 . 條第.款提單是海上貨物承運人發(fā)布的一張憑證 .據(jù)此.提單的法律地位由適用于海上貨物運輸合同法的法律支配這種法律選擇取決于運輸合同當事人的協(xié)議如果當事人沒有就準據(jù)法的選擇達成一致.則適用承運人的主營業(yè)所所在地法當所有權(quán)憑證的占有者和貨物的實際占有者發(fā)生沖突時.前者向后者要求貨物的可能受貨物所在地法或者向其提交訴訟請求的法院的所在地法支配選擇權(quán)由貨物的所有人.即所有權(quán)憑證的持有人行使南非沒有關(guān)于

10、適用于確定有關(guān)所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移中提單的性質(zhì)和功能的法律的判例法法院最可能采取的裁決與解釋提單有關(guān)的問題是依提單合同的自體法.該法是提單當事人選擇的法律.通常是在標準提單格式中由承運人選擇.其他諸如提單的轉(zhuǎn)讓問題將可能依提單所在地法律支配可能但未必會發(fā)生的是提單問題將由提單所代表的貨物的所在地法律支配在瑞典 .提 單與其他憑證一樣.都將由憑證自體法支配不過物之所在地法可能會有效地支配有關(guān)貨物的憑證的法律效果.例如有關(guān)通過占有提單而處置貨物的問題。在瑞士有關(guān)對貨物的所有權(quán)憑證問題.憑證中提到的法律將決定憑證是否代表貨物如果憑證中沒有指定準據(jù)法.則由憑證發(fā)布方的主營業(yè)所所在國法支配如果憑證代表貨物.則對憑

11、證和對貨物的物權(quán)支配由有關(guān)動產(chǎn)所有權(quán)憑證的法律支配如果幾個當事人都對貨物主張物權(quán).其中一些是直接的通過實際占有.其他的以所有權(quán)憑證為基礎.則適用于貨物本身的法律決定他們訴訟請求的優(yōu)先性.瑞士國際私法第5國際有體動產(chǎn)買賣所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移法律適用的公約6于 . 年 . 月 . 日訂立于海牙該公約第 .條規(guī)定.在出賣代表出賣物的單據(jù)時.如果買受人收到單據(jù)時的所在國.其國內(nèi)法確認買受人已取得所有權(quán).則買受人仍取得其所有權(quán) 第 . 條規(guī)定 .在 出賣代表出賣物的單據(jù)時.出賣人就買受人尚未付款的出賣物上享有的權(quán)利對買受人的債權(quán)人是否有抗辯權(quán).依最先提出有關(guān)要求或扣押時單據(jù)所在地國家的內(nèi)國法第.條規(guī)定.第三人對標

12、的物主張所有權(quán)或其他物權(quán)時.買受人可否向該第三人提出抗辯應依提出該主張時.該出賣物所在地國家的國內(nèi)法但是買受人已占有該出賣物.而依該出賣物所在國的國內(nèi)法又確認買受人所取得的各種權(quán)利時.則買受人的權(quán)利仍保持不變在出賣代表出賣物的單據(jù)時.如果買受人收到該項單據(jù)時的所在國確認買受人已取得這些權(quán)利.則買受人的權(quán)利仍保持不變.但出賣物所在國的國內(nèi)法所給予現(xiàn)在占有出賣物的第三人的各種權(quán)利.不在此限 on the applicable law of delivery of bill of lading and transfer of ownershipbecause of the differences o

13、f whether delivery of bill of lading leads transfer of ownership among countries,we must choose applicable law to decide whether delivery of bill of lading leads transfer of ownership in foreign bill of lading legal relationship. there are seven legislative models about it in international society.

14、the private international law of china should provide the nature of bill of lading as being applicable to the law chosen by the parties and to the law where the parties have their place of business when the parties don t choose applicable law and the transfer of bill of lading can be applied to the

15、law of the place where the bill of lading is transferred.the transfer of bills of lading is the core of the system concerning bills of lading. via the negotiability of bills of lading, the international trade develops into the actively document transaction which confer on the international trade con

16、venience, efficiency, swiftness and the substantially development. bills of lading play an essential part in the carriage of goods by sea. whats more, they function effectively in the international trade. the transfer of bills of lading is the core of the system concerning bills of lading. via the n

17、egotiability of bills of lading, the international trade develops into the actively document transaction which confer on the international trade convenience, efficiency, swiftness and the substantially development. owing to the important role and function of the transfer of bills of lading, it is a

18、must to understand the legal problems arising of that.however, the existing law of our countries cannot regulate the navigation practice effectively. for example, there is no law to regulate such problems as whether the transfer of bills of lading is based on transfer of contract or legislation? wha

19、ts the relation between the bills of lading and the contract of carriage of goods? whats the influence of the transfer of bills of lading concerning the related parties? it is the lack of competent rules that make judicial practices rather inconsistent, which blocks the proper judgment on the relate

20、d issues and further, brings uncertainties to both parties. numerous countries have been aware of that, and undertake to settle that problem. on the basis of international and domestic legislative practices of relative issues, this paper undertakes comprehensive discussions and attempts to define th

21、e negotiation of bills of lading; elements need to constitute an effective negotiation and the effects of negotiation as well. finally based on the foregoing discussion i will bring forward the proper legislative suggestions concerning bills of lading negotiation.it has been disputed for a long time

22、 whether the bill of lading rise real right with it. as per this issue, some scholars gave a positive answer ,the other scholars gave a negative answer. according to negative answer, all the rights rised from the b/l can be ascribed to creditors rights. but the answer can not perfectly interpret the

23、 b/ls functions when it is used in international trade, so i consider the positive answer is a better one, and i also think the real right that the b/l rises is a right of possession. in english law , the proprietary rights of goods can be transferred from the seller to the buyer when the the two pa

24、rties want to . so a buyer can not make a plea for the proprietary rights of goods only by the b/l he has. under the circumstances, the buyer may hesitate to do business to protect good intentions buyers, the english law such as the sale of goods act (sga) 1979 ,the the factors act 1889,and a series

25、 of prejudications emphasized the possession right of the b/l, so that the buyers can obtain perfect proprietary right of goods. in continental law, the possession right of the b/l has two functions. one is delivery, it means transfer the possession right of the cargo to the buyer by transfer the b/

26、l. the other is the possession right ,it means the shows of the publics trust. in continental law, the possession of the bill of lading itself is to be equal of the possession of the goods. in the case that a good intentions buyer as a concessionaire of the goods by accept the b/l, if any, the selle

27、r did not have perfect proprietary right of goods, the buy also can make a plea for the proprietary rights of the goods .because he can maintain acquisition in good faith based on his possession right of the b/l. as the above has said , the real right contained in the bill of lading is to it.we shou

28、ld consider both the general rules of transfer of ownership and the rules of bills when analyzing the problem of the relationships between the bills and transfer of ownership. moreover, we must explore the problem in respective of the rules of each country as different countries have different rules

29、. the result may be unscientific due to the defection in the method of study, if we discuss this problem only from the perspective of maritime law or civil law. the legal effects are not the same for the problem of the influences of the bills upon the transfer of ownership in the goods between the a

30、nglo-american countries and the civil law countries. there are many significant differences even among the countries of the same law family. generally speaking, the purpose of transferring ownership is implied in the transferring of the bills in england. the bills are helpful to analyze the uncondit

31、ional identification of the goods in america. how to dispose the bills would simply influence the security interests of the goods but not alter the ownership of the goods. the transfer of bills has almost no effect on the transfer of ownership in the goods in french. in german and other like countri

32、es, the transfer of ownership is synchronized with the transfer of the bills. this is also true to china. the bank possessing the bills only own the security interests while not procure the ownership in the goods in the international accounting. when the bills are in the hand of the bank, whether th

33、e goods are owned by the seller or by the buyer should be judged by the way of accounting and the circumstances at that time. the transferring of the ownership of goods through the transfer of electronic bills is first confronted with the general problem brought about by electronic trade. second, it

34、 is confronted with the special problem in the law to the electronic bills that whether theelectronic bills can fulfill the functions executed by the paper bills. there are some international rules and practices about the electronic bill at present. to settle these problems in the law, however, may

35、be a gradual process. china should stipulate the effect of the transfer of bills clearly in her legislation for the purpose of providing clear guidance of law to the international trade and harmonizing with maritime law. we should also catch the chance to set the rules of electronic bills in order t

36、o adapt to and promote the development of foreign trade.the transfer of the cargos proprietary rights which involves the benefits of the trade partners is the essence of the cargo business in the international trade. but presently, the academic studies reach no unanimous understanding on this legal

37、matter. the main reason for this legal matter lies in different laws on proprietary rights transfer in different countries and no unanimous international regulation, so it leads to uncertainty and complexity in solving the dispute of trade partners in the international trade and impedes the developm

38、ent of the international trade. the author thinks that the regulation of the proprietary rights transfer differs in the civil legal system and the anglo-american legal system and varies a lot in different countries in the same legal system. generally speaking, in france, so long as the round turn re

39、aches an agreement, the cargo proprietary rights will be shifted without other exterior behaviors. in germany, business contract itself cannot shift the proprietary rights. in england, the cargo proprietary rights will be shifted after the cargo is specific. in us, the cargo proprietary rights will

40、be shifted in delivering the cargo after the cargo is specific. in china, it is similar with that in us. in the international trade, when the cargo property rights and the risk have been shifted involves the round turn interest directly, because it affects the security of the receipt of payment and

41、of taking delivery of goods and also relates the responsibility of the cargo loses, the damage. the proprietary rights and the risk do not relate necessarily. not only the buyer accepting to the cargo relates the cargo risk shift correlation, namely when seller delivery thus the basic violation caus

42、es the buyer to refuse to accept the cargo to the risk shift influence, moreover affects the cargo property rights shift. the buyers acceptance of the cargo not only associates the risk shift, which means that the buyers rejection affects the risk shift because the seller violates the contract when

43、delivering the cargo, and influence the transfer of the cargo proprietary rights as well. but in the international trade, the seller conditions the payment on the ownership of the cargo, so before the receipt invoice, once the proprietary rights are shifted to the buyer, the seller will in a passive

44、 condition if there are some sudden events such as the buyers violation of the contract or bankruptcy. it is commonly carried and acknowledged by the majority of countries that the seller insists the reservation of the proprietary rights in the contract in order to protect his own interest. the bill

45、 of lading as a delivery certificate, ensures the well-intentioned holder the right of asking for the cargo. the way of transferring the proprietary rights by electronic bill of lading encounters general legal matter caused by electronic business and also whether the electronic bill of lading can eq

46、ually function as the original bill of lading. presently, there have been some laws and practices abroad, however, the final solution needs a gradual process.we should consider both the general rules of transfer of ownership and the rules of bills when analyzing the problem of the relationships betw

47、een the bills and transfer of ownership. moreover, we must explore the problem in respective of the rules of each country as different countries have different rules. the result may be unscientific due to the defection in the method of study, if we discuss this problem only from the perspective of m

48、aritime law or civil law.the legal effects are not the same for the problem of the influences of the bills upon the transfer of ownership in the goods between the anglo-american countries and the civil law countries. there are many significant differences even among the countries of the same law family. generally speaking, the purpose of transferring ownership is implied in the transferring of the bills