論國際貿易中賣方違約和貨物風險轉移的關系
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-11 08:50
【摘要】：關于國際貨物貿易領域內的風險負擔,本身就是一個容易引發(fā)爭議的焦點,但經過時間的沉淀和實踐的積累,目前國際上通行的是風險自交付時轉移,即“交付主義”規(guī)則。而賣方的違約情況可能會對貨物風險在正常貿易流程中的過渡產生一定影響,至于是否會阻礙風險轉移的方向要視具體情況而定。各國國內法和國際條約對此都有著不同的規(guī)定,也間接地造成了同一個案件適用不同法規(guī)而處斷結果矛盾的尷尬局面,給實踐帶來了很大的困擾。所以討論各種理論觀點的合理性,來最終確定賣方在怎樣的違約情況下會對貨物風險轉移產生影響是具有很大的現實意義的。 究其本質,真正承擔風險的主體就是買賣雙方,如無違約或意外發(fā)生,依照正常的貿易操作流程,貨物的風險應從賣方轉移至買方。而現實中的交易并非如此的簡單,各種突發(fā)事件以及產生的不利后果往往會將其復雜化,如賣方未按合同約定交付貨物,買方遲延領取、拒絕付款等都是會影響風險轉移的相關因素。賣方違約的行為可能會扭轉風險轉移的方向,重新劃分買賣雙方的責任分配,對合同當事人的權利和義務產生較大的影響,在現實交易中也亟待確定的解決方案。就賣方違約與貨物風險轉移的關系,目前無論在立法領域還是學術界都沒有統(tǒng)一的定論,學者們各持己見。大致為:賣方違約影響貨物風險的轉移,買方在無過錯情況下不應承擔貨物的毀壞及由此引發(fā)的一系列損失,風險回轉至賣方;另一種是即使賣方違約買方也應當承擔貨物的風險,但可以要求賣方承擔相應的違約責任并以此為救濟手段。筆者對以上兩種過于絕對化的風險確定規(guī)則都持否定態(tài)度,并提出了全新的風險負擔標準,當賣方違約與風險的發(fā)生有關系時,賣方要對風險損失承擔相應的責任,反之只需在違約程度內承擔違約責任即可。
[Abstract]:As to the risk burden in the field of international trade in goods, it is a controversial focus in itself, but after the accumulation of time and practice, it is generally accepted in the world that the risk is transferred from the time of delivery, that is, the rule of "delivering doctrine". The seller's breach of contract may have a certain impact on the transition of goods risk in the normal trade process, as to whether it will hinder the direction of risk transfer depends on the specific situation. Domestic laws and international treaties of different countries have different regulations on this, which indirectly cause the same case to apply different laws and regulations, and lead to the embarrassing situation of the result contradiction, which brings great troubles to the practice. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to discuss the rationality of various theories to determine the seller's influence on the risk transfer of goods under what kind of breach of contract. In essence, the main body that bears the risk is the buyer and seller. If there is no breach of contract or accidental occurrence, according to the normal trade operation process, the risk of goods should be transferred from the seller to the buyer. In reality, transactions are not so simple, and all kinds of emergencies and adverse consequences often complicate them, such as the seller does not deliver the goods as agreed in the contract, and the buyer delays the receipt of the goods. Refusal to pay is a related factor that affects risk transfer. The seller's breach of contract may reverse the direction of risk transfer, redivide the distribution of responsibilities between the seller and the buyer, and have a great impact on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. As to the relationship between seller's breach of contract and the transfer of goods risk, there is no uniform conclusion in the field of legislation or academia at present, and scholars hold their own opinions. Generally speaking, the seller's breach of contract affects the transfer of the risk of the goods, the buyer should not bear the destruction of the goods and a series of losses arising therefrom without fault, and the risk is returned to the seller; The other is that even if the seller violates the contract the buyer should bear the risk of the goods, but the seller may be required to bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract and use it as a remedy. The author takes a negative attitude towards the above two kinds of over-absolute risk determination rules, and puts forward a new risk burden standard. When the seller defaults and the risk occurs, the seller should bear the corresponding responsibility for the risk loss. On the contrary, only the degree of breach of contract to assume liability for breach of contract.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1;D997.1
[Abstract]:As to the risk burden in the field of international trade in goods, it is a controversial focus in itself, but after the accumulation of time and practice, it is generally accepted in the world that the risk is transferred from the time of delivery, that is, the rule of "delivering doctrine". The seller's breach of contract may have a certain impact on the transition of goods risk in the normal trade process, as to whether it will hinder the direction of risk transfer depends on the specific situation. Domestic laws and international treaties of different countries have different regulations on this, which indirectly cause the same case to apply different laws and regulations, and lead to the embarrassing situation of the result contradiction, which brings great troubles to the practice. Therefore, it is of great practical significance to discuss the rationality of various theories to determine the seller's influence on the risk transfer of goods under what kind of breach of contract. In essence, the main body that bears the risk is the buyer and seller. If there is no breach of contract or accidental occurrence, according to the normal trade operation process, the risk of goods should be transferred from the seller to the buyer. In reality, transactions are not so simple, and all kinds of emergencies and adverse consequences often complicate them, such as the seller does not deliver the goods as agreed in the contract, and the buyer delays the receipt of the goods. Refusal to pay is a related factor that affects risk transfer. The seller's breach of contract may reverse the direction of risk transfer, redivide the distribution of responsibilities between the seller and the buyer, and have a great impact on the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. As to the relationship between seller's breach of contract and the transfer of goods risk, there is no uniform conclusion in the field of legislation or academia at present, and scholars hold their own opinions. Generally speaking, the seller's breach of contract affects the transfer of the risk of the goods, the buyer should not bear the destruction of the goods and a series of losses arising therefrom without fault, and the risk is returned to the seller; The other is that even if the seller violates the contract the buyer should bear the risk of the goods, but the seller may be required to bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract and use it as a remedy. The author takes a negative attitude towards the above two kinds of over-absolute risk determination rules, and puts forward a new risk burden standard. When the seller defaults and the risk occurs, the seller should bear the corresponding responsibility for the risk loss. On the contrary, only the degree of breach of contract to assume liability for breach of contract.
【學位授予單位】：華東政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996.1;D997.1
【相似文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 周湘華;論貨物買賣的風險轉移[J];律師世界;1996年11期
2 嚴音莉;;淺析國際貿易中的風險轉移[J];特區(qū)經濟;2008年10期
3 曹冰;論買賣合同的貨物風險轉移[J];河北法學;2002年01期
4 常鳳梅;關于完善買賣合同貨物風險轉移制度的研究[J];大連海事大學學報(社會科學版);2003年02期
5 常鳳梅;貨物風險轉移規(guī)則的立法例[J];遼寧稅務高等專科學校學報;2002年04期
6 吳煒;;論國際貨物買賣中的風險轉移[J];法制與經濟(中旬刊);2009年04期
7 王凱;;海上貨運主要價格條款下的保險利益問題分析[J];法制與社會;2009年34期
8 李冬明;;淺談英美買賣法中的拒收權[J];現代企業(yè)教育;2008年08期
9 張昕;FOB和CIF條件下風險轉移的若干特殊情況[J];對外經貿實務;1994年07期
10 孟雨;;從一案例看CIF條件下貨損時買方對索賠對象的選擇[J];昆明理工大學學報(社會科學版);2008年02期
相關會議論文 前10條
1 郭昆鵬;趙丹丹;白騰飛;于培明;;制藥企業(yè)新藥研發(fā)風險的應對策略[A];2009年中國藥學會藥事管理專業(yè)委員會年會暨“國家藥物政策與《藥品管理法》修訂研究”論壇論文文集[C];2009年
2 廉恩臣;;論國際貨物買賣中的風險轉移[A];中國律師2000年大會論文精選（下卷）[C];2000年
3 何蒲明;;利用農產品期貨市場探索糧食補貼新思路 基于美國的經驗[A];“三農”問題與新農村建設——湖北省首屆涉農領域青年博士論壇論文集[C];2006年
4 李曉，
本文編號：2236209
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/guojifa/2236209.html
