On The Bill Of Lading Negotiable

The bill of lading has been used since 14th century, the significance of the bill of lading as a special instrument used in the cargo shipping in the international trade is unsubstitutable. To solve the difficulties of delivery and the payment in the international trade, the transferable bill of lading came into being, and the transferability thus become the key of the bill of lading.The transferability of the bill of lading has been the focus of the experts and scholars of this field. This paper sets out to be a detailed comparison of the English law, American law and Taiwan law. The issue of the transferability of bill of lading is the effect of the transfer, that's to say, if the transfer has the effect of giving its transferee a greater title than his transferor had or not. For there's significant differences among countries on this subject, the convention avoid this problem as well. This paper firstly introduces the English law, the American law and the Taiwan law concerned with the transferability of the bill of lading. Secondly, make comparison among them and point out the policies of these regulations.As soon as the passing of property was separated form the bill of lading and proprietary rights became divided, the bill of lading became a less tradable document. A transferee could no longer, even if he ever could, take the bill of lading secure in the knowledge that he was receiving the proprietary rights in the goods for which he had contracted. The nemo dat rule meant that the transferee's title was wholly dependent upon that of his transferor. Similar problems had arisen in respect of bills of exchange and it was as a solution to these difficulties that the good faith purchaser aspect of the bill of the exchange's negotiability arose. But the bill of lading was never made fully negotiable in the sense of passing a good title to a bona fide purchaser for value without notice. The issue of the rights of good faith purchase is destined always to be a compromise between the need for security of title and the need for security of transaction. It will be seen in this paper that American law favors the need for security of transaction and has therefore modeled the good faith purchaser rules for bills of lading upon those applicable to bills of exchange. In contrast, English law has never escaped from the idea that the bill of lading is merely a symbol of the goods and therefore should be treated in exactly the same way as the goods would have been. As English law has never accepted that the goods generally should be negotiable, the bill of lading has never become a negotiable document. In short, it has never been accepted that the need for security of transaction when a bill of lading is involved. The effect of the different approaches is that the purchaser of the bill of lading under American law can usually be sure that, provided he deals in good faith, he will gain an indefeasible title to the goods, whether or not they be in bulk, and regardless of whether the bill has, at any time in its history, been wrongfully dealt with. The only situation that might cause him difficulty is where the bill has been wholly dependent upon the bill's previous life. It may have been stolen or lost, or wrongfully transferred, in circumstances not within the FA1, at any time in its history and that will be sufficient to defeat his claim to the goods. In short, the bill in England generally gives the holder no more security than would delivery of the goods themselves; in America the protection is almost absolute.Taiwan law is a compromise of the American law and English law. It gives the good faith purchaser some kind of uncertain protection which is stipulated in its civil law. If the transferor wrongfully transferred the bill of lading which is occupied by him at the owner's intention, the transferee can claim a better title to the goods; but if the bill of lading was stolen or lost and then was transferred to a good faith purchaser, the previous owner of the bill can defeat the purchas...