论国际贸易中卖方违约和货物风险转移的关系

发布时间：2018-09-11 08:50

【摘要】：关于国际货物贸易领域内的风险负担,本身就是一个容易引发争议的焦点,但经过时间的沉淀和实践的积累,目前国际上通行的是风险自交付时转移,即“交付主义”规则。而卖方的违约情况可能会对货物风险在正常贸易流程中的过渡产生一定影响,至于是否会阻碍风险转移的方向要视具体情况而定。各国国内法和国际条约对此都有着不同的规定,也间接地造成了同一个案件适用不同法规而处断结果矛盾的尴尬局面,给实践带来了很大的困扰。所以讨论各种理论观点的合理性,来最终确定卖方在怎样的违约情况下会对货物风险转移产生影响是具有很大的现实意义的。究其本质,真正承担风险的主体就是买卖双方,如无违约或意外发生,依照正常的贸易操作流程,货物的风险应从卖方转移至买方。而现实中的交易并非如此的简单,各种突发事件以及产生的不利后果往往会将其复杂化,如卖方未按合同约定交付货物,买方迟延领取、拒绝付款等都是会影响风险转移的相关因素。卖方违约的行为可能会扭转风险转移的方向,重新划分买卖双方的责任分配,对合同当事人的权利和义务产生较大的影响,在现实交易中也亟待确定的解决方案。就卖方违约与货物风险转移的关系,目前无论在立法领域还是学术界都没有统一的定论,学者们各持己见。大致为:卖方违约影响货物风险的转移,买方在无过错情况下不应承担货物的毁坏及由此引发的一系列损失,风险回转至卖方;另一种是即使卖方违约买方也应当承担货物的风险,但可以要求卖方承担相应的违约责任并以此为救济手段。笔者对以上两种过于绝对化的风险确定规则都持否定态度,并提出了全新的风险负担标准,当卖方违约与风险的发生有关系时,卖方要对风险损失承担相应的责任,反之只需在违约程度内承担违约责任即可。
[Abstract]:As to the risk burden in the field of international trade in goods, it is a controversial focus in itself, but after the accumulation of time and practice, it is generally accepted in the world that the risk is transferred from the time of delivery, that is, the rule of "delivering doctrine". The seller's breach of contract may have a certain impact on the transition of goods risk in the normal trade process, as to whether it will hinder the direction of risk transfer depends on the specific situation. Domestic laws and international treaties of different countries have different regulations on this, which indirectly cause the same case to apply different laws and regulations, and lead to the embarrassing situation of the result contradiction, which brings great troubles to the practice. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to discuss the rationality of various theories to determine the seller's influence on the risk transfer of goods under what kind of breach of contract. In essence, the main body that bears the risk is the buyer and seller. If there is no breach of contract or accidental occurrence, according to the normal trade operation process, the risk of goods should be transferred from the seller to the buyer. In reality, transactions are not so simple, and all kinds of emergencies and adverse consequences often complicate them, such as the seller does not deliver the goods as agreed in the contract, and the buyer delays the receipt of the goods. Refusal to pay is a related factor that affects risk transfer. The seller's breach of contract may reverse the direction of risk transfer, redivide the distribution of responsibilities between the seller and the buyer, and have a great impact on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. As to the relationship between seller's breach of contract and the transfer of goods risk, there is no uniform conclusion in the field of legislation or academia at present, and scholars hold their own opinions. Generally speaking, the seller's breach of contract affects the transfer of the risk of the goods, the buyer should not bear the destruction of the goods and a series of losses arising therefrom without fault, and the risk is returned to the seller; The other is that even if the seller violates the contract the buyer should bear the risk of the goods, but the seller may be required to bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract and use it as a remedy. The author takes a negative attitude towards the above two kinds of over-absolute risk determination rules, and puts forward a new risk burden standard. When the seller defaults and the risk occurs, the seller should bear the corresponding responsibility for the risk loss. On the contrary, only the degree of breach of contract to assume liability for breach of contract.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996.1;D997.1

【相似文献】