ouldwithdrawfromtherelationofobligation.[27]Actually,thecontractualrelationbetweencarrierandshipperisnotrescinded.Andtheconsignee’srightsanddutiesassignedmaybedifferentfromtheshipper’s.In1845,thejudgeexplainedinthecase“Thompson.V.Doming”,“NothingcoulddemonstratethatinanycommercialcustomstheB/Lcanassignthecontract.TheB/Lcanonlyassigntherealrightnotthecontract”.[28]
　　Inmyopinion,itistheB/L’scharacterofdocumentofobligationthatdeterminestherelationofdebtformedbetweenthecarrierandtheholderofB/Lsubjecttotheshipper.
　　Thisrelationisindependenttothecontractofcarriagebetweenthem.It’sbasedontheactofB/L(actofsecurity).Itcommencesfrombeingissuedandterminateswhenbeingwrittenoff.ItsexertionanddispositionareusuallythroughtakingpossessionoforassigningtheB/L.Becauseoftheabstractcharacterofthedocumentofobligation,therightsoftheholderofB/Larenotinfluencedbythedefectoftheshipper’srights.WhilethetransferofB/Lisdifferentfromtheassignmentcontract,soit’snotnecessarytonoticethecarrieroftransferringtheB/Lbyendorsement.TheholderofB/LisentitledtotherightswhenacquiringtheB/L.InaccordancewiththewrittennatureofB/L,thecharacterandcontentoftheholder’srightsaredifferentfromtheshipper’s.TheB/Lis“conclusiveevidence”intheholder’shand.SothetransferofB/Lhastwoeffects:
　　(a):theeffectofassigningtheright:Theassigneeisentitledtothecreditor’srightclaimandtheindirectpossessionofgoodsafteracquiringtheB/L.(b):theeffectofawardingqualification:theassignee’srightsarenotinfluencedbythedefectoftheassignor’srights.So,theprovision78of《MaritimeLawofPRC》“Therelationshipbetweenthecarrier,consigneeandtheholderofB/LwithrespecttotheirrightsandobligationsshallbedefinedbytheclauseofB/L.”isthereflectionofthecreditor’srightvalidityofB/L.
　　    Thecauseofactiontwo:“torts”
　　Atfirst,weshouldclarifytwoquestions.Thefirstoneisthat,titleofdocumentdoesn’trepresenttheownershipofgoodsasmentionedabove.WhentheB/Liscontrolledbyconsignee,theownershipofgoodsmaystillbelongtotheshipperbecauseofthe“retentionoftitleclause”.UnderthecircumstanceofL/C,theissuingbandhasthepledgetotheB/Liftheconsigneedoesn’tredeemofdocumentsbypayingthebank,Thesecondoneisthat,accordingtousualparlance,thedefinitionof“actoftort”istheactwhichaggressesuponother’sdominatedrightsorinterestsprotectedbylawillegallyandtheconductorshouldtaketheresponsibilityforthedamage.[29]Sotheobjectofactoftortisrealright,intellectualproperty,personalright,etc.Sotheviewthatthepremiseoftortobligationistheclaimerhavingtheownershipofgoodswhentheactoftortoccursiswrong.[30]Becausetherightofpossessionisakindofrealright,onceitcanconstitutethefouressentialsofactoftort,theholderofB/Lcanalsoinvestigateandaffixtheresponsibilitytocarrierforinfringementofphysicalpossession.
　　TheholderofB/Lcanclaimnotonlytheresponsibilityofbreachofcontractbutalsotheresponsibilityoftorts,soitconstitutestheconcurrentofclaim.Namely,onefactisinconformitywithseveralessentialsofnormofclaim.TheholderofB/Lcanchoosethemostprofitablecauseofactiontosueaccordingtothedifferencesintherespectofimputationcause,burdenofproof,prescription,essentials,formofresponsibility,jurisdiction,applicablelaw,andsoon.
　　(b).TheholderofB/LcansuethepersontakingdeliverywithoutB/L:
　　Thecauseofactionone:“torts”
　　Thereasonisasaforesaid,moreoverthereisnoanycontractualrelationbetweentheholderofB/LandthepersonwhotakesdeliverywithoutB/L,sothecauseofactionistortunequivocally.Inthelightofthedominatedviewincivillawacademicandpracticalcircles,thecausationoftortshouldadoptthedoctrineofappropriatecausation,thatistosay,“ifonlyonefactpossessed,accordingtothesocialcommonexperience,itwillresultinthesameresultasthefactofdamage.”[31]
　　Thecauseofactiontwo:“undueenrichment”
　　WhendiscussingtheresponsibilityattributionofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L,peoplealwaystakeintoconsiderationfromtheaspectoftortandbreachofcontract,butnevergiveanyattentiontothedebtofundueenrichmentwhichmaybeconstituted.Thedefinitionof“undueenrichment”isthathavingnolegalbasis,thebeneficiaryacquirestheinterestswhilejeopardizestheinterestsoftheotherpeople.[32]Theessentialofconstitutionareasfollows:
　　i).Acquiringtheinterestsinproperty:TakingdeliveryfromthecarrierwilladduptothepropertyofthepersonwhodeliverswithoutB/Lpositively.
　　ii).Jeopardizingtheinterestsoftheotherpeople:ThepropertyoftheholderoforiginalB/LisreducednegativelybecauseofthedeliveryofgoodsbythepersonwithoutB/L.
　　iii).Theexistenceofcausationbetweenacquiringtheinterestsandbeingprejudiced:Thetheoryofcivillawdividestheundueenrichmentintotypes:undueenrichmentofpacareandundueenrichmentofnon-pacare.Whiletheundueenrichmentofnon-pacarecanbedividedintothreetypes:undueenrichmentonact,undueenrichmentonlegalprovisionsandundueenrichmentonnaturalevents.Whiletheundueenrichmentonactisconstitutedbythreetypesofact,namely,theactofthepersonwhoisprejudiced,theactofbeneficiaryandtheactofthethirdparty.[33]ThedamagesinpropertyoftheholderoforiginalB/Lshouldbetheresultofthejointactofbeneficiaryandthethirdparty.
　　v).Havingnocauseinlaw:
　　It’sabsenceofcauseinlawthatthepersonwhotakesdeliveryofgoodswhichshouldbelongtotheholderoforiginalB/L.
　　ItalsoformstheconcurrentoftheclaimofundueenrichmentandrealrightfortheholderofB/L.Butdifferentfromtheconcurrentofthetortandcontractactioninwhichtheobligeecanchoosetoexercise,therearetwodoctrinesinthetheoryofcivillawaboutthevalidityoftheconcurrent.Thefirstoneisthedoctrine“priorityofeffectofrightsoverthings”.Itmaintainsthattheclaimofrightsoverthingsshouldbeappliedpreterentially,whiletheexercisingoftheclaimofundueenrichmentisthesupplementary.Theotheristhedoctrine“independenceofclaimofundueenrichment”.Itmaintainsthatthetwoclaimarereciprocalindependent,whenthey’reco-existenceonthesamesubject-matter,theownerofgoodscanclaimtothepersonwhoisunauthorizedpossessionorencroachingonthegoodsforrestitutionaccordingtotheclaimofrightoverthings.Meanwhile,hecanalsoclaimtothepersonwhoisunauthorizedforrecoveryofpossessionaccordingtotheclaimofundueenrichment,becausepossessionisalsoakindofbenefit[34].Thedoctrineofsupple

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]  下一页