gpointrecognizesthatweshouldinquireintotheissueofthevalidityofindemnityfromtheangleofaccessoryobligationofguaranteecontract,butitisnottenable.
　　Firstly,theobligationwhichtheindemnityguaranteesisnottheobligationofcontract,andisnottheactitselfofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L.TheactofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lbringsabouttworelationshipsofdebt.OneofitisthetortorbreachofcontractobligationbetweenthecarrierandtheholderoforiginalB/L.Theotheroneistherelationshipofcreditor’srightbetweenthecarrierandthepersonwhotakesdeliverywithoutB/L.Inmyopinion,therelationshipbetweenthemshouldbetheobligationofundueenrichment.Thereasonisasaforesaid.TheactofthepersonwhotakesdeliverywithoutB/Lisconformitywiththeessentialsoftheobligationofundueenrichment.Andtherelationshipbetweenthemcanonlybetheobligationofundueenrichment.There’snocontractualrelationbetweenthem,sothebreachofcontractcan’tbetenable.It’salsoimpossibletoconstitutetheobligationofvoluntaryservice.Releasingofgoodsisthevoluntaryactofthecarrier,notinfringinghisrights,soitdoesn’tconstitutetheobligationoftorteither.
　　Secondly,accordingtotheProvision5of《GuaranteeLaw》,themasterobligationguaranteedshouldbethe“mastercontract”.ButaccordingtotheProvision1ofthe《JurisdictionalinterpretationofGuaranteeLaw》:“Underthecircumstanceofnon-infringementofthemandatoryprovisionsoflaw,ifthepartiescreatetheguaranteeforthecreditor’srightintheformregulatedbythe,itmaybefoundvalidity”.Thisregulationextendstheobjectofguaranteefrom“contract”to“creditor’sright”.It’sinconformitywiththecurrenttendencyofreallaw.Sowhat’stheletterofguaranteeofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lguaranteesistheobligationofundueenrichment,thisstandingpointhaslegalbasisasmentionedabove.
　　Havingcleared-cutthetwoissuesabove.WhethertheindemnityofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lisvalid,atfirst,weshouldtakeintoconsiderationthatwhethertheobligationofundueenrichment——themasterobligationitguarantees——isvalid.Ifthemasterobligationisinvalid,theletterofguaranteemustbeinvalid.Secondly,weshouldconsiderwhethertheguarantorhasthefraudulentconduct.AccordingtotheProvision41of《JurisdictionalinterpretationofGuaranteeLaw》:“Ifthedebtorandguarantorfraudthecreditorjointlytoconcludethemasterandsuretyshipcontracts,thecreditorcanclaimtothecourttorescindthecontracts.Thedebtorandguarantorundertakethejointandseveralresponsibilityforthedamageofcreditor.”
　　Nowwecandrawaconclusion:Undergeneralcircumstances,iftheobligationofundueenrichmentbetweenthecarrierandthepersonwhotakesdeliverywithoutB/Listenable,theletterofguaranteeisalsovalid.Inthecaseofguarantor’sfraudulence,thecarriercanrequesttocourtforrevocatingtheactofguarantee.
　　C.Theextendingtendencyoftheindependenceofletterofguarantee——DemandGuarantees
　　Recently,theDemandGuaranteesareadoptedwidelyinthecontractofinternationalsaleongoods.It’swidelyusedforrestrictingtheguarantorincaseofabusingtheinvalidityofmasterobligationasthereasonofcounterargument.Oneofthecardinalprinciplesisthattheguaranteeisindependentofbasictransactionandtherelationshipbetweenguarantorandbeneficiary.[40]ThebanksinU.S.Acan’tsignandissueletterofguarantee,sotheysubstituteitwith“standbyL/C”.[41]
　　InthecaseofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L,thecarrierandtheDemandGuaranteepresenteragreethatwhenthecarrierreceivesthedocumentsofclaimdeclarationsubmitstotheguarantor,ifit’sinconformitywiththerequirementofDemandGuarantee,theguarantorshouldpaytothecarrier.Thus,thevalidityofletterofguaranteeisindependentofmasterobligation,stressingtheautonomyofwilloftheparties.ItisconformitywiththeregulationofProvision5of《GuaranteeLaw》“Ifthecontractofsuretyshiphasotheragreements,doaccordingtoit”.
　　6.    TheresolutiontotheissueofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L
　　
　　a.Theadvicesgiventosolvetheissue:
　　(a).Employmentofseawaybill:seawaybillisakindofnon-negotiablewrittendocumentwhichdemonstratesthegoodscarriedbyseahavebeentakenoverorshipmentbythecarrierandthecarrierguaranteestodelivergoodstothedesignatedconsignee.[42]Becauseofnon-negotiable,seawaybilldoesn’trepresenttheownershipofgoods,preventingthefraudulencemaybebroughtaboutintheassignmentofB/L.Meanwhile,itreducestheprocessofcirculation,sotheconsigneecantakedeliveryimmediately,adaptingtotherecentrealityoffastshippingbutslowexchangeofdocuments.TheproblemofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lisresolved.[43]
　　(b).AdoptionofelectronicB/L:It’sakindofprocedurewhichmakesuseofthesystemofEDItoassigntheownershipofgoodscarriedbysea.The《RulesofElectronicB/L》formulatedbyCMIstipulatesinProvision9that:“…whendelivering,oncetheconsigneeshowsthevaliddocument,thecarriermustreleaseofgoodafterchecking.Theownerofgoodsissuesadirectiveofdeliverytothecarrieraccordingtothecodegivenbycarrier,andthecarrierreleasesofgoodsaccordingtothedirectiveofdelivery”.[44]
　　(c).TheenterprisesofexportconcludeCIPorCFRcontractsifpossible:InFebruary,2001,theMinistryofForeignEconomicandTradeissued《ThenoticeaboutevasionofriskofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/L》,expoundingthatrecentlytheshippingagentswereincollusionwiththeimporterstoreleaseofgoodswithoutB/Lin60-70percentFOBcontracts.Atlast,boththegoodsandmoneyofourexportenterpriseswerelost.So,theMFETsuggestedtheforeigntradeenterprisesshouldconcludeCIForCFRcontractsifpossible.
　　c.    Theevaluationtotheadvicementionedaboveandtheviewpointaboutit.
　　Thedocumentssubjecttotitleofdocumentsuchasseawaybillhavebeenwidelyusedinthecarriagebysea.ComparedwiththetraditionalB/L,seawaybillhasmanyadvantages.ButB/Lfunctionofexchangeincarriagebyseastillcan’tbesubstitutedbyseawaybillcompletely.Somepeoplesaid:“thesystemofcompanyandsecurityarethetwobasisofmoderncapitalism”,whilethedevelopmentofB/Lisjustinconformitywiththetendencyofrightssecuritization.Sofromtheviewofencouragingtheexchangeoftrade,it’snotappropriatetosubstitutetheB/Lwithseawaybilltotally.
　　IfelectronicB/Lisadopted,theownerofgoodscancontrolthrough
　　thecodeissuedbythecarrier.ThecircumstancesofreleasingofgoodswithoutB/Lcannotappeargenerally.Butintherecentstage,thisproposalisnotappropriatetobringintoeffectbecauseofmanytechnicalelementsand

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]  下一页