提单物权凭证说之流弊——解析最高人民法院(2015)民提字第126号民事判决书的逻辑错误

Abuses of the viewpoint of a bill of lading being a document of title: Analyzing the logical errors in the written civil judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China(MinTiZi No. 126,2015)

针对'提单是否为所有权凭证'这一问题,再审判决得出的'提单在运输合同中亦是所有权凭证'的结论与其在前面得出的'提单是运输合同中签发的债权凭证'的结论之间缺少必要的逻辑衔接,其论证过程亦存在逻辑错误及理论认识误区。针对'如果提单是所有权凭证,是否持有提单就对提单项下货物享有所有权'这一问题,再审判决在论证过程中亦显现出混淆法律关系的逻辑错误且其结论为悖论。再审判决的上述逻辑错误源于其受提单为物权凭证观点的影响所致。只有认识到提单在运输领域、贸易领域以及支付领域均为债权凭证而非物权凭证的本质属性,才能完全避免再审判决的上述逻辑错误。

As to the problem of whether the B/L is a document of title,there is a lack of the necessary logic link between the conclusion of the B/L being also a document of title and that of the B/L a document of obligatory right in the elaboration of the written civil judgment of the Supreme People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China.About the problem of whether the B/L holder is the owner of the cargo under the B/L,there are also logic errors in that elaboration of the same written civil judgment.All these errors root in the misunderstanding of the nature of the B/L right.Only the right understanding of the B/L right can help avoiding these logic errors.