《3429.B 论提单转让与货物所有权转移之关系文献及翻译.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《3429.B 论提单转让与货物所有权转移之关系文献及翻译.doc（6页珍藏版）》请在三一文库上搜索。
1、提单的交付与货物所有权转移的法律适用摘要 .由于各国在提单的交付是否导致货物所有权转移方面的规定不一致.因此.在涉外提单法律关系中.就需要进行法律选择以确定提单的交付是否能导致货物所有权的转移国际社会对于提单的交付与货物所有权转移的法律适用主要有种立法模式中国国际私法对于提单的性质可以适用当事人选择的法律.在当事人没有选择时用当事人的营业所所在国法提单的转让应适用提单转让时的所在地法关键词 .提单 .货物所有权 .转移 .法律适用提单是用以证明海上货物运输合同和货物已经由承运人接收或装船.以及承运人保证据以交付货物的单证为了便利国际贸易的进行.大多数国家都将提单视为一种所有权凭证.提单能代表提
2、单项下货物的所有权.因此.提单的交付能导致货物所有权的转移 但也有的国家认为.提单的交付并不必然导致货物所有权的转移基于这种冲突.在涉外提单法律关系中.就需要进行法律选择.以确定提单的交付是否能导致货物所有权的转移一 提单的交付与货物所有权转移法律适用的比较法考察提单的交付与货物所有权转移的法律适用主要涉及两个问题.即提单是否为所有权凭证的法律适用和提单转让的法律适用对于这两个问题.各国的规定有所不同在澳大利亚.持有提单本身即表明提单持有人对货物享有财产权.提单代表着对货物的权利虽然占有提单授权占有人占有货物.但货物所有权问题最终由一般的动产法律规则支配.换句话说.提单是所有权转移的象征.而不
3、是货物所有权据以转移的实际工具在国际贸易中.该理由即足以将提单视为所有权凭证在澳大利亚.通常认为提单是所有权凭证的理由是基于/商人习惯0.这一词最早来源于古老的英国判例.由于这是一项国际性的习惯.因 此对于这一问题的冲突很少基于此.至今未有关于澳大利亚法院要求考虑由什么法律支配提单作为所有权凭证的功能的案例报道不过.可以设想在一些案件中有必要考虑提单是否及如何作为所有权凭证这一先决法律冲突问题如果有一批运往或者来自其国内法不将提单视为所有权凭证的国家的国际货物销售.澳大利亚法院可能必须考虑是否适用那一个国家的法律在这种情形中.澳大利亚法院可能会将其自己的法律作为法院地法适用其理由是承认习惯属于
4、程序问题.而这一问题通常由法院地法支配澳大利亚法院地法承认将提单视为所有权凭证的/商人实践0.也许这就是这一问题的终结如果法院把该问题视为实质问题.而不是程序问题.则有可能适用通常的法律选择规则 ) ) )物之所在地法.即货物于转移时所处的地方的法律如适用这一规则.确 定提单性质和功能的准据法将是提单在交易发生时所处的国家的法律也支持这一观点.他认为.涉及到提单的交易由交易时提单所处的地方的法律支配 .即使是提单项下的货物仍处于运输途中.在奥利奥地利联邦冲突法第 . 条的规定是强制性的.据此.它们适用于通过提单及其他运输单证而产生的货物所有权的转移奥地利联邦冲突法第 . 条规定.有体产物的取得
5、和丧失.包括占有应该依导致取得和丧失的事实状态完成时有体物所处的国家的法律支配 在加拿大.如果提单或者其他运输单据在发布的时候依货物所处的地方的法律被视为所有权凭证.则它们在加拿大将被视为所有权凭证 所有权凭证转移的有效性由单证转移时的所在地法支配在丹麦.当可转让提单发布的时候.是由提单的所在地而不是由货物的所在地.决定与卖方和买方的债权人有关的准据法.其理由是提单是一种所有权凭证当有关货物的交易的达成与提单无关时.纠纷发生时货物的所在地法可能是确定准据法的因素.除非买方意识到货物是由提单所代表如果不同提单之间发生冲突.则发生冲突时货物所处的地方的法律将被推定为确定准据法如果对单据的性质发生争
6、议.则将由适用于基础法律关系的法律确定单据的确切性质当发布不可转让的提单时.则适用冲突发生时货物的所在地法在英国.将由凭证发布时货物所处的地方的法律决定某一凭证是否是所有权凭证法国于 . 年 . 月 . 日颁布的海事法明确规定了法国法应当适用的情形及适用于离开或者到达法国港.而不由国际条约支配的海事运输 一般认为.这一原则是以公共政策为基础制定.据此.如果装货港或者目的港在法国.则当事人不能以一种与这些明确排除适用外国法的规则相违背的方式订立合同如果法国法得到适用.则作为所有权凭证的提单将赋予它的占有者对有关货物行使权利虽然. 年法国法并未明确表明提单是一种所有权凭证 .但 大多数著名学者都认
7、为提单具有这一地位在德国 .必须区分诸如提单之类的可转让有价凭证和这些凭证所代表的权利或者资产凭证本身的转让受凭证所在地法支配而这种转让对凭证所代表的权利或者资产所产生的法律效果则由适用于特许权利的法律所支配对于有关货物所有权的凭证. 是由货物所在地法支配在意大利.当要确定代表货物的提单的性质时.提单也由提单中所规定的法律支配如果提单中没有提到准据法.由于提单依意大利法主要被视为一种所有权凭证 .依 . 年 . 月 . 日经改革的意大利国 际私法.将适用提单被发布的国家的法律 .在日本.当 诸如提单之类的货物所有权凭证的当事人在凭证中指定了特定法律作为准据法时.则该被选择的法律将支配单据的性质
8、和功能如果没有这种准据法条款 .则所适用的法律将依日本基本法律适用法的基本规则确定据此.日本法院将首先适用支配基础运输合同的法律.东京地区法院如果这一法律不明确.则法院将考虑合同缔结地等因素 .以 此确定当事人的意图.日本基本法律适用法第.条依荷兰国际私法.对于某一凭证是否能称为所有权凭证的问题.由凭证签发人的营业地所在国法律支配对于凭证上的所有权如何转移的问题.适用凭证转移时所在地法应该注意的是.原则上.货物所有权由凭证所在地法支配而不管货物本身位于何处据此.在已对货物发布所有权凭证时.并不会发生对适用于运输中的货物的法律不明确的问题有可能某人主张在提单范围之外.直接取得了依提单运输的对货物
9、的权利如果该人是基于善意而不知道提单的存在的话.则该人是否确实取得该权利将由货物所在地法支配.否则将优先适用支配提单的法律。依俄罗斯法转让提单或其他所有权凭证被认为是与转让货物等同.俄罗斯联邦民法典第 . 条第.款提单是海上货物承运人发布的一张凭证 .据此.提单的法律地位由适用于海上货物运输合同法的法律支配这种法律选择取决于运输合同当事人的协议如果当事人没有就准据法的选择达成一致.则适用承运人的主营业所所在地法当所有权凭证的占有者和货物的实际占有者发生冲突时.前者向后者要求货物的可能受货物所在地法或者向其提交诉讼请求的法院的所在地法支配选择权由货物的所有人.即所有权凭证的持有人行使南非没有关于
10、适用于确定有关所有权转移中提单的性质和功能的法律的判例法法院最可能采取的裁决与解释提单有关的问题是依提单合同的自体法.该法是提单当事人选择的法律.通常是在标准提单格式中由承运人选择.其他诸如提单的转让问题将可能依提单所在地法律支配可能但未必会发生的是提单问题将由提单所代表的货物的所在地法律支配在瑞典 .提 单与其他凭证一样.都将由凭证自体法支配不过物之所在地法可能会有效地支配有关货物的凭证的法律效果.例如有关通过占有提单而处置货物的问题。在瑞士有关对货物的所有权凭证问题.凭证中提到的法律将决定凭证是否代表货物如果凭证中没有指定准据法.则由凭证发布方的主营业所所在国法支配如果凭证代表货物.则对凭
11、证和对货物的物权支配由有关动产所有权凭证的法律支配如果几个当事人都对货物主张物权.其中一些是直接的通过实际占有.其他的以所有权凭证为基础.则适用于货物本身的法律决定他们诉讼请求的优先性.瑞士国际私法第5国际有体动产买卖所有权转移法律适用的公约6于 . 年 . 月 . 日订立于海牙该公约第 .条规定.在出卖代表出卖物的单据时.如果买受人收到单据时的所在国.其国内法确认买受人已取得所有权.则买受人仍取得其所有权 第 . 条规定 .在 出卖代表出卖物的单据时.出卖人就买受人尚未付款的出卖物上享有的权利对买受人的债权人是否有抗辩权.依最先提出有关要求或扣押时单据所在地国家的内国法第.条规定.第三人对标
12、的物主张所有权或其他物权时.买受人可否向该第三人提出抗辩应依提出该主张时.该出卖物所在地国家的国内法但是买受人已占有该出卖物.而依该出卖物所在国的国内法又确认买受人所取得的各种权利时.则买受人的权利仍保持不变在出卖代表出卖物的单据时.如果买受人收到该项单据时的所在国确认买受人已取得这些权利.则买受人的权利仍保持不变.但出卖物所在国的国内法所给予现在占有出卖物的第三人的各种权利.不在此限 On the applicable law of delivery of bill of lading and transfer of ownershipBecause of the differences o
13、f whether delivery of bill of lading leads transfer of ownership among countries,we must choose applicable law to decide whether delivery of bill of lading leads transfer of ownership in foreign bill of lading legal relationship. There are seven legislative models about it in international society.
14、The private international law of China should provide the nature of bill of lading as being applicable to the law chosen by the parties and to the law where the parties have their place of business when the parties don t choose applicable law and the transfer of bill of lading can be applied to the
15、law of the place where the bill of lading is transferred.The transfer of bills of lading is the core of the system concerning bills of lading. Via the negotiability of bills of lading, the international trade develops into the actively document transaction which confer on the international trade con
16、venience, efficiency, swiftness and the substantially development. Bills of lading play an essential part in the carriage of goods by sea. Whats more, they function effectively in the international trade. The transfer of bills of lading is the core of the system concerning bills of lading. Via the n
17、egotiability of bills of lading, the international trade develops into the actively document transaction which confer on the international trade convenience, efficiency, swiftness and the substantially development. Owing to the important role and function of the transfer of bills of lading, it is a
18、must to understand the legal problems arising of that.However, the existing law of our countries cannot regulate the navigation practice effectively. For example, there is no law to regulate such problems as whether the transfer of bills of lading is based on transfer of contract or legislation? Wha
19、ts the relation between the bills of lading and the contract of carriage of goods? Whats the influence of the transfer of bills of lading concerning the related parties? It is the lack of competent rules that make judicial practices rather inconsistent, which blocks the proper judgment on the relate
20、d issues and further, brings uncertainties to both parties. Numerous countries have been aware of that, and undertake to settle that problem. On the basis of international and domestic legislative practices of relative issues, this paper undertakes comprehensive discussions and attempts to define th
21、e negotiation of bills of lading; elements need to constitute an effective negotiation and the effects of negotiation as well. Finally based on the foregoing discussion I will bring forward the proper legislative suggestions concerning bills of lading negotiation.It has been disputed for a long time
22、 whether the Bill of Lading rise real right with it. As per this issue, some scholars gave a positive answer ,the other scholars gave a negative answer. According to negative answer, all the rights rised from the B/L can be ascribed to Creditors rights. But the answer can not perfectly interpret the
23、 B/Ls functions when it is used in international trade, so I consider the positive answer is a better one, and I also think the real right that the B/L rises is a right of possession. In English law , the proprietary rights of goods can be transferred from the seller to the buyer when the the two pa
24、rties want to . So a buyer can not make a plea for the proprietary rights of goods only by the B/L he has. Under the circumstances, the buyer may hesitate to do business To protect good intentions buyers, the English law such as the Sale of Goods Act (SGA) 1979 ,the the Factors Act 1889,and a series
25、 of prejudications emphasized the possession right of the B/L, so that the buyers can obtain perfect proprietary right of goods. In continental law, the possession right of the B/L has two functions. One is delivery, it means transfer the possession right of the cargo to the buyer by transfer the B/
26、L. The other is the possession right ,it means the shows of the publics trust. In continental law, the possession of the Bill of Lading itself is to be equal of the possession of the goods. In the case that a good intentions buyer as a concessionaire of the goods by accept the B/L, if any, the selle
27、r did not have perfect proprietary right of goods, the buy also can make a plea for the proprietary rights of the goods .Because he can maintain Acquisition in Good Faith based on his possession right of the B/L. As the above has said , the real right contained in the Bill of Lading is to it.We shou
28、ld consider both the general rules of transfer of ownership and the rules of bills when analyzing the problem of the relationships between the bills and transfer of ownership. Moreover, we must explore the problem in respective of the rules of each country as different countries have different rules
29、. The result may be unscientific due to the defection in the method of study, if we discuss this problem only from the perspective of Maritime Law or Civil Law. The legal effects are not the same for the problem of the influences of the bills upon the transfer of ownership in the goods between the A
30、nglo-American countries and the Civil Law countries. There are many significant differences even among the countries of the same law family. Generally speaking, the purpose of transferring ownership is implied in the transferring of the bills in England. The bills are helpful to analyze the uncondit
31、ional identification of the goods in America. How to dispose the bills would simply influence the security interests of the goods but not alter the ownership of the goods. The transfer of bills has almost no effect on the transfer of ownership in the goods in French. In German and other like countri
32、es, the transfer of ownership is synchronized with the transfer of the bills. This is also true to China. The bank possessing the bills only own the security interests while not procure the ownership in the goods in the international accounting. When the bills are in the hand of the bank, whether th
33、e goods are owned by the seller or by the buyer should be judged by the way of accounting and the circumstances at that time. The transferring of the ownership of goods through the transfer of electronic bills is first confronted with the general problem brought about by electronic trade. Second, it
34、 is confronted with the special problem in the law to the electronic bills that whether theelectronic bills can fulfill the functions executed by the paper bills. There are some international rules and practices about the electronic bill at present. To settle these problems in the law, however, may
35、be a gradual process. China should stipulate the effect of the transfer of bills clearly in her legislation for the purpose of providing clear guidance of law to the international trade and harmonizing with Maritime Law. We should also catch the chance to set the rules of electronic bills in order t
36、o adapt to and promote the development of foreign trade.The transfer of the cargos proprietary rights which involves the benefits of the trade partners is the essence of the cargo business in the international trade. But presently, the academic studies reach no unanimous understanding on this legal
37、matter. The main reason for this legal matter lies in different laws on proprietary rights transfer in different countries and no unanimous international regulation, so it leads to uncertainty and complexity in solving the dispute of trade partners in the international trade and impedes the developm
38、ent of the international trade. The author thinks that the regulation of the proprietary rights transfer differs in the Civil Legal System and the Anglo-American Legal System and varies a lot in different countries in the same legal system. Generally speaking, in France, so long as the round turn re
39、aches an agreement, the cargo proprietary rights will be shifted without other exterior behaviors. In Germany, business contract itself cannot shift the proprietary rights. In England, the cargo proprietary rights will be shifted after the cargo is specific. In US, the cargo proprietary rights will
40、be shifted in delivering the cargo after the cargo is specific. In China, it is similar with that in US. In the international trade, when the cargo property rights and the risk have been shifted involves the round turn interest directly, because it affects the security of the receipt of payment and
41、of taking delivery of goods and also relates the responsibility of the cargo loses, the damage. The proprietary rights and the risk do not relate necessarily. Not only the buyer accepting to the cargo relates the cargo risk shift correlation, namely when seller delivery thus the basic violation caus
42、es the buyer to refuse to accept the cargo to the risk shift influence, moreover affects the cargo property rights shift. The buyers acceptance of the cargo not only associates the risk shift, which means that the buyers rejection affects the risk shift because the seller violates the contract when
43、delivering the cargo, and influence the transfer of the cargo proprietary rights as well. But in the international trade, the seller conditions the payment on the ownership of the cargo, so before the receipt invoice, once the proprietary rights are shifted to the buyer, the seller will in a passive
44、 condition if there are some sudden events such as the buyers violation of the contract or bankruptcy. It is commonly carried and acknowledged by the majority of countries that the seller insists the reservation of the proprietary rights in the contract in order to protect his own interest. The bill
45、 of lading as a delivery certificate, ensures the well-intentioned holder the right of asking for the cargo. The way of transferring the proprietary rights by electronic bill of lading encounters general legal matter caused by electronic business and also whether the electronic bill of lading can eq
46、ually function as the original bill of lading. Presently, there have been some laws and practices abroad, however, the final solution needs a gradual process.We should consider both the general rules of transfer of ownership and the rules of bills when analyzing the problem of the relationships betw
47、een the bills and transfer of ownership. Moreover, we must explore the problem in respective of the rules of each country as different countries have different rules. The result may be unscientific due to the defection in the method of study, if we discuss this problem only from the perspective of M
48、aritime Law or Civil Law.The legal effects are not the same for the problem of the influences of the bills upon the transfer of ownership in the goods between the Anglo-American countries and the Civil Law countries. There are many significant differences even among the countries of the same law fam
49、ily. Generally speaking, the purpose of transferring ownership is implied in the transferring of the bills in England. The bills are helpful to analyze the unconditional identification of the goods in America. How to dispose the bills would simply influence the security interests of the goods but not alter the ownership of the goods. The transfer of bills has almost no effect on the transfer of ownership in the goods in French. In German and other like count