fusestopay.Andthedocumentshavenotbeenreturnedtotheseller,thesellerdoesn’texercisetherightofstoppageintransit.
　　b.    Theconsigneeisincapacityofredemptionofdocumentsbypayingthebank.
　　c.    TheusageoftakingdeliverywithoutoriginalB/Lhasformedbetweencarrierandconsigneebecauseoflong-termbusinesstransactions.
　　III.    ThecarriercolludeswiththepersonwhotakesdeliverywithoutB/LtofraudtheholderoforiginalB/L.
　　(c).ThedemurofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L
　　Inreality,thesituationrelatingtothereleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lisverycomplicated.Sometimes,there’sthefactofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L,however,somespecificaffairscandemuritsirregularity.Theseyears,theshipownerspresentedmanyreasonstodemurtheliabilityinlawsuits.There’redifferentopinionsbetweenthetheoreticalandpracticalcircles.Now,Iwillanalyzeseveraltypicalreasons.
　　I.TheholderofB/Lbringsalawsuitsurpassingtheprescription.OncetherewereintensecontroversiesabouttheprescriptionofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L.Now,theunanimousopinionaboutitisoneyear.
　　II.ThelawoftheplacefordeliveryorthecustomarypracticedemandsofdeliverygoodsevenifwithoutoriginalB/L.[8]
　　III.Oncetheconsigneedoesn’treceiveB/Lbecauseofitsmissing,beingstealed,extinctionoranyfinancereasons,ifhecouldprovethatheisjusttheassigneeofB/L,andcouldgiveasatisfactoryexplanationaboutthedirectioninwhichoriginalB/Lhasgone,thecarrierhasrighttodelivergoodstohim.Butitisnecessarytotakedeliverywithguaranteeafterthesummonexhortationbypublication.[9]
　　V.TheholderofB/Lknowsdeliberatelythecarrier’sactofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L.Butstillprovidesassistancetotakedeliveryorprovidessomeotherconvenienceorhascometoapaymentagreementwiththebuyer.Thisisjusttheequitabletheory——estoppel.
　　Meanwhile,theacademicandpracticalcircleshavepresentedsomeotherdemurringreasonsrecently.Butit’sworthyofinquiringintowhetheralltheadvocationscouldbetenable.
　　I.ThecarrierreleasesofgoodsinaccordancewiththedirectiveofthedirectornamedintheB/L:Insomepeople’sopinion,thecarrierhasperformedtheliabilityofdeliveringgoodsproperlyinaccordancewithlaw,soheshouldnotbesubjecttotheresponsibilityofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L.[10]Butactuallyit’sbasedonapremisethattheindicatoristhelawfulholderoftheB/Lwhendirecting.Evenso,thecarriershouldbesubjecttotheresponsibilitytothebonafideholderoforiginalB/L.
　　II.ReleasingofgoodswithoutB/LunderthecircumstanceofstraightB/L:oneviewisthat,thenatureofstraightB/Las“titleofdocument”hasaltered.ThepersonsubjecttotheconsigneewillnottakedeliverywithoutoriginalB/L,whiletheconsigneenamedintheB/LcandoitwithoutB/L.[11]ThesamereasonasaboveifthebearerB/LandorderB/Lhasbeennamedbyendorsementandhasbeenpromisednottobeassignedanymore,theconsigneecanalsotakedeliverywithoutoriginalB/L.
　　Theotherviewisthat,thereisnomandatoryprovisioninthe《MaritimeLawofPRC》thatthecarriermustdelivergoodstotheholderofstraightoriginalB/L,soheshouldn’tundertaketheresponsibilityforreleasingofgoodswithoutnamedB/L.[12]
　　Actually,alltheviewsabovearepartial.Inmyview,althoughthe
　　straightB/Lcannotbeassigned,itisstillthetitleofdocumentandbasisofreleasingofgoods.Merely,itiseffectivetothepersonnamedinB/L.Moreover,inaccordingtoprovision78of《MaritimeLawofPRC》“Therelationshipbetweenthecarrier,consigneeandtheholderofB/LwithrespecttotheirrightsandobligationsshallbedefinedbytheclauseofB/L”.SoonlyiftheconsigneedominatedinstraightB/ListhelawfulholderofB/L,thecontractofcarriagebyseabetweenthecarrierandconsigneecouldbetenable.Inaddition,fromthejudgmentof“LaiWuAidibiochemistryLimitedcompanyVHaiChengBangDainternationalagentofshipandgoodsLtdcompany”[13],wecandrawtheconclusionthatiftheconsigneeofnamedB/Lhasnotpaytheissuingbanktoredeemofdocuments,thecarrier’sactofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lwilljeopardizetheinterestoftheshipper.Therefore,theviewabovethatthenamedB/LcouldbethedefenseagainsttheresponsibilityofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lisnottenable.
　　III.Thelimitationofperiodofresponsibilityasthedefense:Theperiodofresponsibilityofthedamageorlossofgoodsin《HagueRules》is“hackletohackle”or“railtorail”.WhiletheoutofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lusuallyhappensontheshore,somanyshipownersinpracticeusuallypresentthefactthathisobligationofcaringforgoodsismerelyfromloadingtodischargingthegoodsasthedefense.TherewasonecaseintheHouseofLords:CharteredBankVBritishSteamNavigation(1909)A.C.396,Itwassaid:“…inallcasesandunderallcircumstancestheliabilityofthecompanyshallabsolutelyceasewhenthegoodsarefreeoftheship’stackle,andthereuponthegoodsshallbeattheriskforallpurposeandinveryrespectoftheshipperorconsignee.”[14]Inmyopinion,releasingofgoodswithoriginalB/LisdeterminedbythelegalcharacterofB/Lasthesaysabove.Whilethecarrier’sloading,handling,stowing,carrying,keeping,caringforanddischargingthegoodscarriedproperlyandcarefullyisthemandatoryprovisionforhim.Bothofthemaretwodifferentobligationsthecarriershouldundertake.Andthereisnolegalprovisionregulatingthattheformershouldberestrictedbythelatter.SothelimitationofperiodofresponsibilitycouldnotbethedefenseofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L.
　　3.    TheresponsibilityattributionandexertionoflegalcapacitytosueofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L[15]——thecriticismtothe“doctrineofbreachofcontract”.“doctrineoftort”.“doctrineofconcurrent”.
　　
　　Inrecentyears,theproblemoftheresponsibilityattributionhasbecomethefocusofcontroversyamongthepartiesinlawsuit,theforwardpositionhotspotofacademiccirclesinmaritimelawandthedifficultspotofequivalentcasethecourttries.
　　ThedifferentqualitationstotheactofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lhavedirectrelationshipwithboththeascertainmentoftheparties’rightsanddutiesandtheresultoflitigation.Thejudicialandacademiccirclesviewsareasfollowed:
　　a.“doctrineofbreachofcontract”:Ononehand,deliveringthegoodstothepersonwhohastherighttoownisoneoftheagreedmattersaccordingtothecontractofcarriage.Notperformingtheobligation,thecarrierwillundertaketheresponsibilityforbreachingofcontracttothecontract-partyevidencedbyB/L.[16]Onetheotherhand,whentheB/Lisassignedtothebonafidethirdpartyincludingtheconsignee,oncetheassigneeacceptstheB/L,itmean

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]  下一页