| The development of international business depends on the development of international transportation. And carriage of goods by sea dominates the international transportation industry due to its huge transportation volume, wide coverage and cheap charges. And the bill of lading (B/L), as the most important document, is by far developing into the indispensable tool in the process of international business, transportation and settlement. However, for a variety of reasons, there are many cases of delivery of goods by carriers at the ports of destination without B/L. In accordance with relevant international conventions, practices and domestic laws and regulations, carriage of goods by sea shall deliver goods against bills of lading in order to ensure the safety of goods. Nevertheless, there is no uniform substantive convention By far across the world to regulate delivery of goods without B/L or solve actions arising thereof.As a member of WTO, China is playing an important role in international business. Carriage of goods by sea is therefore much important. With the increase of delivery of goods without B/L, actions arising thereof impose indelible effects on both parties in the international business. What is more, relevant provisions in Maritime Law and Special Maritime Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China are imperfect and are even of a lack in the solution of certain issues, which leads to the constant arguments on delivery of goods without B/L in judicial and academic circles and will undermine China's legal system construction if the present situation continues.Based on the above analysis of issues concerning current delivery of goods without B/L and by reference to predecessors' experiences, the author of the present paper writes this paper in the hope of generating more public discussions. The author hopes that analysis of this paper can supply some enlightenment to judicial and academic circles concerning the delivery of goods without B/L and help to solve actions arising thereof better to some extent. The present paper consists of five parts.Part I focuses on issues concerning the delivery of goods without B/L. It begins with the definition of delivery of goods against B/L and its importance, which paves the path for comparative discussion of delivery of goods without B/L. Then the author discusses the definition, causes, manifestations and legal nature of delivery of goods without B/L one by one. The author puts the focus of discussion the legal nature of delivery of goods without B/L. That is because parties concerned in delivery of goods without B/L have various relationships and their legal relationships are complicated. Besides, a good mastery of the legal nature of delivery of goods without B/L is of decisive significance to the solution to the action concerning delivery of goods without B/L .Based on the thoughts and opinions of the predecessors', the author assumes that delivery of goods without B/L can be indentified as tort and breach of contract respectively, and an act with concurrent liabilities for tort and breach of contract. In the author's opinion, the above three identifications are reasonable to some extent. However, delivery of goods without B/L cannot be always identified as one of the said three. Instead, they shall be indentified in accordance with the specific situation. In different cases, they shall be identified differently, which will be detailed later in the present paper.Partâ…¡focuses on issues concerning the jurisdiction in cases of delivery of goods without B/L. It firstly introduces the principle of determining the jurisdiction in cases of delivery of goods without B/L, specifying factors that should be considered in determining the specific jurisdiction in the judicial practice concerning delivery of goods without B/L. Secondly, this part introduces several common types of jurisdiction and the validity of provisions concerning jurisdiction for B/L contracted by both parties when negotiating jurisdiction in cases of delivery of goods without B/L. The author of the present paper assumes that in accordance with China's law, provisions concerning jurisdiction of B/L is deemed to be valid, unless these provisions circumvent the liabilities that one part should undertake.Partâ…¢focuses on the subject of the right of action. When delivery of goods without B/L occurs, subjects liable for it are very complicated. Therefore, this part begins with the analysis of the various relationships of parties concerned in the delivery of goods without B/L and put the relationships between all the parties in order so as to determine the right of action of the oblige. Meanwhile, relevant materials show that among 153 cases of delivery of goods without B/L, the proportion of cases where the shippers deliver goods without B/L amounts to 62.96%. In consequence, the present paper conducts discussion on the right of action of the oblige when the most common delivery of goods without B/L by the shipper takes place. As for the identification of the responsible party, this part will not discuss more on it because Partâ…£will deal with it. This part will only conduct necessary discussion on the special phenomena of time charter and voyage charter. Partâ…£focuses on issues of choosing cause of action in cases of delivery of goods without B/L and applicable laws. Choosing cause of action is the manifestation of exerting right of action by the concerned party. And choosing the cause of action in cases of delivery of goods without B/L is the key point to the success of action. In practice, some courts forbid the concerned party from choosing the cause of action or turn a deaf ear to the cause of action chosen by the concerned party. That is because it will lead to action exhaustion to allow the concerned party to choose the cause of action on his own. And in the present author's opinion, the best method to relieve action exhaustion is that when the party is allowed to choose the cause of action on his own, he should be allowed to change his claim and change his cause of action in case of any wrong cause of action. Besides, the present author assumes that the delivery of goods without B/L usually involves foreign factors to large extent, and different countries and regions have different regulations over the solutions in this aspect. It follows that law application turns to be the prerequisite of case trial and the decision thereof. In consequence, it is necessary to discuss applicable law here.Partâ…¤focuses on the burden of proof and the limitation of action in cases of the delivery of goods without B/L. As for burden of proof, the present author holds the view that the plaintiff shall undertake the liability to prove himself to be the lawful holder of B/L and the economic loss arising thereof. And the burden of proof for the fact of the delivery of goods without B/L shall be divided between parties faithfully by the courts in consideration of the different distances to the evidences, difficulties to approach evidences and abilities to collect evidences of both parties in specific cases. As for the limitation of action, the present author assumes that discussion may be conducted from the following two perspectives. The first is that whether limitations of action for different causes of actions are the same or not. The second is whether limitations of action for different subject matters of action are the same or not. When discussing about the starting point of the limitation of action, the present author thinks that the time prescribed in Article 257 in Maritime Law shall be adopted in consideration of the particularity of cases of the delivery of goods without B/L. For more details, see the body of the present paper.
|
PDF Full Text Request