本文選題：免責(zé)條款 + 解釋原則��； 參考：《上海海事大學(xué)》2007年碩士論文

【摘要】： 在海上貨物運(yùn)輸中,免責(zé)條款的使用十分盛行,無(wú)論是租船合同或提單以及其他單據(jù)中均訂有免責(zé)條款。免責(zé)條款是當(dāng)事人雙方風(fēng)險(xiǎn)劃分的工具。通常,海上貨物運(yùn)輸中免責(zé)條款的受益方是承運(yùn)人,貨物利益方(通常是貨主和提單持有人)是這些免責(zé)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的直接承受方。為了了解海上貨物運(yùn)輸中承運(yùn)人如何援引免責(zé)條款,劃分承運(yùn)人與索賠方之間的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)分配,本文比較國(guó)際公約、《海上貨物運(yùn)輸文書草案》及我國(guó)《海商法》了解不同責(zé)任制度下的免責(zé)條款,并對(duì)如何解釋免責(zé)條款,哪些事件可以禁止承運(yùn)人援引免責(zé)條款分別進(jìn)行研究。 本文第1章,本章分別對(duì)中國(guó)法下的解釋原則及英國(guó)法下的相反解釋原則、疏忽條款的解釋原則、根本違約解釋原則進(jìn)行分析。對(duì)免責(zé)條款的解釋是既遵循合同自由原則的,又對(duì)它進(jìn)行了嚴(yán)格地限制。承運(yùn)人及其受雇人要想成功援引免責(zé)條款取決于兩個(gè)方面,第一個(gè)是承運(yùn)人及受雇人員是否有可免責(zé)的法定事由,第二個(gè)就是法院對(duì)免責(zé)條款解釋采用什么樣的解釋原則,這兩個(gè)方面對(duì)承運(yùn)人及其受雇人員是否能成功援引免責(zé)條款是十分重要的。 第2章,對(duì)海上運(yùn)輸中若干免責(zé)條款進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析,把海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的免責(zé)條款分為:除外責(zé)任免責(zé)、除外危險(xiǎn)免責(zé)、因托運(yùn)人過失免責(zé)、因貨物本身性質(zhì)而免責(zé)及其他免責(zé)條款這五類,根據(jù)國(guó)際公約《海牙規(guī)則》、《漢堡規(guī)則》、《海上貨物運(yùn)輸文書草案》及我國(guó)《海商法》下的規(guī)定對(duì)這五類免責(zé)條款進(jìn)行比較,分別從不同歸責(zé)原則下、舉證責(zé)任、法律責(zé)任等方面對(duì)其進(jìn)行分析。并且在本章中還結(jié)合了許多英美判例對(duì)免責(zé)條款及承運(yùn)人如何援引免責(zé)條款作出了具體分析。 第3章,對(duì)海上貨運(yùn)實(shí)務(wù)中存在的一些禁止免責(zé)之事由進(jìn)行了分析。適航義務(wù)、管貨義務(wù)、不得不合理繞航這三項(xiàng)是承運(yùn)人責(zé)任期間的三大主要義務(wù),違反這三大義務(wù)的任何一項(xiàng)義務(wù)或者遲延交付,承運(yùn)人都有可能不能援引免責(zé)條款、責(zé)任限制條款。因此,本章對(duì)不適航、管貨過失、繞航、遲延交付這幾件禁止承運(yùn)人援引免責(zé)條款的事件著重進(jìn)行了論述。這有助于承運(yùn)人了解這些事件,以便在實(shí)踐中采取一切措施防止這些事件的發(fā)生,使承運(yùn)人成功援引地援引免責(zé)條款。 海上貨物運(yùn)輸中的免責(zé)條款對(duì)合同當(dāng)事雙方都是極其重要的,尤其是承運(yùn)人更是應(yīng)對(duì)這方面進(jìn)行深入了解,只有承運(yùn)人能合理地、靈活地行使自己免責(zé)權(quán)利時(shí),才可以大大減少海上航運(yùn)業(yè)的特殊風(fēng)險(xiǎn),降低航運(yùn)成本的投入,這樣才有利于航運(yùn)事業(yè)的蓬勃發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:In the carriage of goods by sea, the use of exemption clauses is very popular, no matter charter party, bill of lading and other documents, there are exemption clauses. The exemption clause is the tool of the risk division between the parties. Usually, the carrier is the beneficiary of the exemption clause in the carriage of goods by sea, and the benefit of the goods (usually the owner of the goods and the holder of the bill of lading) is the direct recipient of these disclaimers. In order to understand how the carrier invokes the exemption clause in the carriage of goods by sea and divides the risk distribution between the carrier and the claimant, This article compares the international conventions, the draft instrument for the Carriage of goods by Sea and the Maritime Law of China to understand the exemption clauses under different liability regimes, and how to interpret the exemption clauses. Which events may prohibit the carrier from invoking exemption clauses separately. In Chapter 1, this chapter analyzes the principles of interpretation under Chinese law, the opposite interpretation principle under English law, the interpretation principle of negligence clause and the interpretation principle of fundamental breach of contract. The interpretation of exemption clause not only follows the principle of freedom of contract, but also strictly restricts it. The successful invocation of the exemption clause by the carrier and its servants depends on two aspects: the first is whether the carrier and his servants have a statutory cause of exemption, and the second is the principle of interpretation adopted by the court in respect of the interpretation of the exemption clause. These two aspects are very important for the carrier and his employees to successfully invoke the exemption clause. In Chapter 2, several exemption clauses in maritime transport are analyzed in detail, and the exemption clauses in the carriage of goods by sea are divided into: exemption from exemption of excepted liability, exemption from danger, exemption from liability due to fault of the shipper, The five categories of exemption and other disclaimers due to the nature of the goods are compared according to the Hague rules of the International Convention, the Hamburg rules, the draft instrument for the Carriage of goods by Sea and the provisions under the Maritime Law of China. Respectively from different imputation principle, the burden of proof, legal liability and other aspects of the analysis. In this chapter, we also analyze the exemption clause and how the carrier invokes the exemption clause. In chapter 3, the author analyzes the reasons of some disclaimers in the practice of maritime freight transport. The seaworthiness obligation, the duty to manage the cargo and the obligation to make a reasonable deviation are the three main obligations of the carrier during the period of its liability. Any breach of any of these three obligations or delay in delivery may not be invoked by the carrier. Limitation of liability clause Therefore, this chapter focuses on the unseaworthiness, mismanagement of cargo, deviation and delay in delivery, which prohibit the carrier from invoking the exemption clause. This helps the carrier to be aware of these events in order to take all measures in practice to prevent them from occurring and to enable the carrier to invoke the exemption clause successfully. The exemption clause in the carriage of goods by sea is extremely important to both parties to the contract, especially when the carrier should have a thorough understanding of this aspect, only the carrier can exercise his right of exemption reasonably and flexibly. Only in this way can the special risks of maritime shipping industry be greatly reduced and the investment of shipping costs be reduced, which is beneficial to the vigorous development of shipping industry.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D996.1;D922.294

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 陳敬根;國(guó)際海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人在多因致?lián)p下的賠償責(zé)任研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 李佳;廢除共同海損制度以后的法律構(gòu)建[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年

2 吳松海;論提單中承運(yùn)人的免責(zé)條款[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

3 孫曄華;國(guó)際海運(yùn)承運(yùn)人免責(zé)條款研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2008年

，

本文編號(hào)：1969214