论FOB卖方在海上货物运输下的利益保护

发布时间：2018-03-18 11:07

本文选题：FOB贸易　切入点：实际托运人　出处：《华东政法大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 我国作为出口贸易大国,FOB贸易占据80%的份额。然而由于买方负责签订货物运输合同和指定船舶运输,相比CIF和CFR贸易,FOB卖方无疑面临着更多的风险。如何保护FOB贸易下卖方的利益成为本文研究的重点。本文第一章主要阐述了FOB贸易下买卖双方义务、FOB贸易在实践运用中应注意的情况、以及卖方的法律地位。文章指出卖方的法律地位主要表现为卖方取得自己记载为托运人的提单以及卖方取得他人记载为托运人的提单这两种情况。第二章则阐述了卖方在FOB贸易下所面临的主要风险。包括:当提单记载卖方以外的他人为托运人时,卖方面临无法结汇、丧失货物控制权和丧失诉权的风险;当卖方持有记载自己为托运人的提单时,因无船承运人的介入,可能面临无船承运人欺诈的风险。第三章和第四章是本文的重点,着重阐述了如何解决以上两个方面的问题,从而保护我国FOB贸易下出口商的利益。第三章指出当提单未记载卖方为托运人时,卖方的风险主要是由于我国法律对托运人的规定存在缺陷而造成的。我国《海商法》规定了实际托运人的定义“托运人是将货物交给承运人或者与承运人有关的人”,立法本意是将FOB贸易下的卖方纳入到托运人制度进行保护,但该制度在法律上没有明确规定实际托运人相应的权利和义务,在法律关系上又未能将它归入海上货物运输合同或提单法律关系,出现了法律规定和理论衔接的空白,未能起到保护FOB卖方的利益的作用。针对这一原因,本文指出了在目前法律制度下为保护FOB下卖方的利益,最好是将卖方载入提单托运人栏内,使其实际托运人地位得以彰显。此外,结合最新通过的《鹿特丹规则》,笔者指出其中的“单证托运人”并不能很好的保护FOB贸易下卖方的利益。第四章主要分析无船承运人介入时出现的欺诈现象。文章首先阐述FOB贸易下无船承运人介入时的法律关系,指出无船承运人欺诈主要是因为卖方所持有的无船承运人提单不具有物权凭证性质,因此卖方不能有效控制货物的物权。在解决对策上,笔者提出了卖方在实践中要谨慎接收无船承运人提单。具体措施是对境外无船承运人的资质进行调查、要求货代出具保函来保证凭正本提单放货以及防范信用证中的软条款。
[Abstract]:China, as a major exporter of foreign trade, accounts for 80% of the trade. However, since the buyer is responsible for signing the contract of carriage of goods and for the carriage of designated ships, Compared with CIF and CFR trade sellers are undoubtedly facing more risks. How to protect the seller's interests under FOB trade has become the focus of this paper. In the first chapter of this paper, the author mainly expounds the situations that should be paid attention to in the practical application of the FOB trade between the buyer and the seller. The article points out that the seller's legal status is mainly manifested in the seller's obtaining the bill of lading which is recorded as the shipper and the seller's obtaining the bill of lading recorded by others as the shipper's bill of lading. The second chapter expounds the main risks faced by the seller under the FOB trade, including: when the bill of lading records that the seller is the shipper, the seller faces the risk of being unable to settle foreign exchange, losing control of the goods and losing the right of action; When the seller holds the bill of lading which records himself as the shipper, he may face the risk of fraud because of the intervention of the NVOCC. Chapter three and Chapter 4th are the emphases of this paper, which focus on how to solve the above two problems in order to protect the interests of exporters under the FOB trade in China. Chapter three points out that when the seller is the shipper, the bill of lading does not record the seller. The seller's risk is mainly caused by the defects in the provisions of our law on shippers. Our Maritime Law defines the actual shipper as "the shipper is to deliver the goods to or in connection with the carrier." The purpose of the legislation is to protect the seller under the FOB trade into the shipper's regime, However, the system has not clearly stipulated the corresponding rights and obligations of the actual shipper in law, and failed to classify it into the legal relationship of the contract of carriage of goods by sea or the bill of lading in the legal relations. For this reason, it is pointed out that in order to protect the seller's interests under FOB under the current legal system, it is best to put the seller in the shipper's column of the bill of lading. In addition, combined with the newly adopted Rotterdam rules, the author points out that the "documentary shipper" can not protect the seller's interests under FOB trade. Chapter 4th mainly analyzes the fraud phenomenon when the non-ship carrier intervene. Firstly, this paper expounds the legal relationship of the non-ship carrier intervention under the FOB trade. It is pointed out that the fraud of NVOCC is mainly due to the fact that the bill of lading held by the seller does not have the nature of document of title, so the seller cannot effectively control the real right of the goods. The author puts forward that the seller should receive the NVOCC bill of lading carefully in practice. The concrete measures are to investigate the qualification of the NVOCC, to require the forwarder to issue a letter of guarantee to guarantee the delivery of the goods against the original bill of lading and to guard against the soft clauses in the letter of credit.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D996.19

【参考文献】