论无正本提单提放货的责任属性及权利救济——兼评《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》

Discussing on the responsibility property and right relief in delivery of goods without bill of lading——A concurrently discussion on the provisions of some issues of applicable law on trial in cases of delivery of goods without bill of lading

针对2009年3月5日颁布实施的《最高人民法院关于审理无正本提单交付货物案件适用法律若干问题的规定》(简称《无单放货规定》)第3条关于对承运人无正本提单放货责任属性的定性以及第11条和第13条关于无正本提单放货人和无正本提单提货人责任承担方式的规定,采用剖析承运人在目的港交付货物所处的法律地位和动态物权进入流通领域的法律特征的方法,在分析和论证后指出:首先,承运人依据海上货物运输合同的约定和法律规定,在不改变承运人的法律地位和不免除承运人海上货物运输合同义务的前提下,在卸货港向收货人交付货物的问题上是处于卖方托运人交货代理的法律地位,承运人虽未凭正本提单错误放货,并应对无单放货的损失承担赔偿责任,但因承运人无单放货不具有法律规定的侵占或损害他人财产权的侵权特征,故承运人无单放货只构成违约,而不能构成对提单持有人物权的侵害。《无单放货规定》第3条将其规定为违约与侵权责任竞合,缺乏事实依据。其次,当具有财产权的货物进入流通领域以后,在货物交易合同没有解除的情况下,该财产即货物作为交易的标的物,在合同相对人之间只表现为债权的相对财产。虽提货人未付款,在货物所有权未发生转移时仍占有货物,但该行为依法只构成不当得利,而不能构成对提单持有人物权的侵害。《无单放货规定》第11条规定由承担违约责任的承运人与承担返还不当得利的提货人承担连带责任,缺乏法律依据。最后,在提货人与提单持有人达成付款协议以后,该行为依法应是提单持有人对交货代理人即承运人超越代理权无单放货行为的追认,由此依法应免除承运人无单放货的违约民事责任。《无单放货规定》第13条规定仍不免除承运人民事责任,与民事代理法律制度不符,且损害了承运人的合法利益。

Aiming at the promulgation and implementation of the provisions of some issues of applicable law on trial in cases of delivery of goods without bill of lading promulgated by the supreme people＇s court on 5 March 2009（hereinafter referred to as the regulation of delivery of goods without bill）,and Article 3 of this regulation normalizing the carrier＇s responsibility property on the delivery of goods without bill of lading,and article 11 and 13 regulating the ways of undertaking the responsibility by people who both delivery of goods and take delivery.The author analyzed the legal status of the carrier delivering the goods at the port of destination and the legal characteristics of dynamic property right put into the circulation field.After analyzing and reasoning in that,the author pointed out： the carrier delivering the goods to the consignee at discharging port on the basis of the contract of carriage of goods by sea and the laws and regulations,and under the precondition that the carrier does not change in legal status and not exempt from the obligations of contract of carriage of goods by sea is at the legal status of seller＇s delivery agent.Although the carrier delivery without original bill of lading by mistake and should bear the liability for the loss,because of the carrier delivery without original bill of lading does not have legal characteristics of tort,such as misappropriating or damaging to property of others,carrier delivering without original bill of lading can just breach the contract,not infringe the property right of holder who have the bill of lading.Article 3 of this regulation stipulating this behavior as the concurrence between breaching liability and infringement liability is lack of facts.When the goods come into the circulation field and rescission of goods sales contract contract doesn＇t happen,the goods are regarded as the subject of the transactions in the contract and only for the relative property in obligatory right between the counterparts of the contract.Although the people who take delivery without payment,occupy the goods without the ownership transferred, this behavior only constitute the unjust enrichment,doesn＇t infringe the property right of holder who have the bill of lading.Article 11 of this regulation stipulating that the carrier who breach contract undertake joint liability with the people taking the delivery who bear the restitution of unjust enrichment is lack of legal basis.After the people taking the delivery and the holder of bill of lading come to an payment agreement,this behavior is lawfully regarded as holder ＇s ratification of the delivery agent（carrier） beyond his agency authority.Therefore,the duty of breaking contract undertaken by the carrier who delivery without original bill of lading should be exempt.Article 13 of this regulation stipulates that the carrier is still not exempt from the civil liability;it disagrees with the civil agency system,and damages legal rights of the carrier.