While the out of releasing of goods without B/L usually happens on the shore, so many shipowners in practice usually present the fact that his obligation of caring for goods is merely from loading to discharging the goods as the defense. There was one case in the House of Lords: Chartered Bank V British Steam Navigation (1909) A.C.396, It was said: “…in all cases and under all circumstances the liability of the company shall absolutely cease when the goods are free of the ship’s tackle, and thereupon the goods shall be at the risk for all purpose and in very respect of the shipper or consignee.”[14] In my opinion, releasing of goods with original B/L is determined by the legal character of B/L as the says above. While the carrier’s loading, handling, stowing, carrying, keeping, caring for and discharging the goods carried properly and carefully is the mandatory provision for him. Both of them are two different obligations the carrier should undertake. And there is no legal provision regulating that the former should be restricted by the latter. So the limitation of period of responsibility could not be the defense of releasing of goods without B/L.
3.The responsibility attribution and exertion of legal capacity to sue of releasing of goods without B/L[15]——the criticism to the “doctrine of breach of contract”. “doctrine of tort”. “doctrine of concurrent”.

In recent years, the problem of the responsibility attribution has become the focus of controversy among the parties in lawsuit, the forward position hot spot of academic circles in maritime law and the difficult spot of equivalent case the court tries.
The different qualitations to the act of releasing of goods without B/L have direct relationship with both the ascertainment of the parties’ rights and duties and the result of litigation. The judicial and academic circles views are as followed:
a. “doctrine of breach of contract”: On one hand, delivering the goods to the person who has the right to own is one of the agreed matters according to the contract of carriage. Not performing the obligation, the carrier will undertake the responsibility for breaching of contract to the contract-party evidenced by B/L.[16] One the other hand, when the B/L is assigned to the bona fide third party including the consignee, once the assignee accepts the B/L, it means acquiescing the term of B/L. It results in the unanimous of expression of intention has formed between the carrier and bona fide assignee of B/L. The B/L plays a role of contract of carriage, and becomes the basis of exercising the right of claim to the holder of B/L. So the carrier’s act of releasing of goods without B/L constitutes the breach of commitment that he had pledge to deliver the goods to the assignee of B/L. This is called by academic circle “doctrine of implied contract” between the carrier and the holder of B/L. Besides there’re “doctrine of agency”[17], “doctrine of assignment of contract”[18], and so on. In judicial practice, in the appeal case “Yuehai Electronic Ltd Company V BaoMa carriage Ltd Company of tendering Bureau” in August27, 1996, the Supreme People’s Court found the carrier should undertake the responsibility for breaching of contract to make up for the loss of the lawful holder of B/L by reason of releasing of goods without B/L.[19]
b. “doctrine of tort”: Once some people maintained that releasing of goods without B/L constituted the “fundamental breach of contract” in Common Law. That is to say, if the nature of breach of contract is so serious that violate the fundamental of contract, the delinquent party can’t protect himself by invoking exception clauses in contract. Mr. Yang Liangyi (HongKong) has also advocated that the act of releasing of goods without B/L constituted the fundamental breach of contract, and it should be applied the six years’ prescription.[20] In practice, the act of releasing of goods without B/L has also been regarded as fundamental breach of contract by some courts, applying the law of tort directly. But the theory
of fundamental breach of contract is merely a doctrine and has no precise criterion to estimate. So in 1980, it was upsetted by the House of Lords in the case “Photo Production Ltd.V. Securicor Transport Ltd”.[21] Now, the reason of standing for doctrine of tort is ut infro: The B/L is title of document. Its delivery and the physical delivery of goods are provided with equal authenticity, and holding the B/L is just as constructive possession of goods. The function carried out of title of document of B/L is certainly guaranteed by the carrier’s performance of obligation of delivering goods with original B/L. Once the carrier releases of goods without B/L, it constitutes the infringement of the real right owned by the holder of B/L, so it belongs to the act of tort .
c. “Doctrine of concurrent”: It advocates the B/L is provided with both the real right and creditor’s right character. Not only can the holder of B/L claim to the carrier for restitution or undertaking the tort responsibility for compensation for damages based on the real right’s claim, but also can he claim to the carrier for bearing the responsibility for breach of contract based on the creditor’s claim.[22] This advocation is accepted universely by theoretical circle. In the article《Delivery without B/L》, Mr. Yang Liangyi illustrated definitely that: the legal consequence of releasing of goods without B/L is two potential responsibilities the carrier should take: one of them is contractual responsibility, and the other is encroachment responsibility.[23]
d. “Doctrine of tort exception”: It’s the view identified by the judicial and practical circle. The main content of this view is that the character of B/L determines the

上一页  [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]  下一页