論海商法第78條第1項規定得否於海上貨運單適用

Could Para. 1 of Art. 78 of Maritime Act be Enforced Under Sea Waybill

羅俊瑋(Chun-Wei Lo)

《高大法學論叢》 11卷2期 (2016/03) Pp. 77-129+131-140

摘要

於現今國際貿易進行運作時，在貨物到達目的地前，當事人有就貨物為交易且轉讓權利之必要。因此遂發展出以載貨證券作為運送人收受貨物之收據，而為運送契約之證明，並表彰貨物所有權之歸屬之用，藉以利於各利害關係人進行貿易。然現時造船工業、航海技術、通訊科技進步，船舶航行速度快捷，常生貨物已運抵於目的港，受貨人尚未取得載貨證券，以至於無法向海上運送人請求領取貨物之情形。為解決前述問題，海上貨運單遂應運而生。此種單證與載貨證券不同，其不具有可轉讓性，受貨人於請求受領貨物時並無須出示並繳回該單證於運送人，運送人即可將貨物交付。海上貨運單並非如同載貨證券表彰其上所載貨物所有權之物權性質，其僅為運送人收受貨物之收據，暨運送契約之證明，兩者性質及定位有所差異。按海商法第78條第1項規定：「裝貨港或卸貨港為中華民國港口者之載貨證券所生之爭議，得由我國裝貨港或卸貨港或其他依法有管轄權之法院管轄。」本項規定除載貨證券外，是否可適用於簽發海上貨運單之情形？甚或於未簽發海上運送單據時，該海上運送契約之法律關係是否亦得依據海商法第78條第1項規定，藉以決定管轄權法院？近臺灣高雄地方法院102年度海商字第10號民事判決論及運送人簽發海上貨運單所生爭議，認為得直接依據前揭規定，據以決定具管轄權之法院，惟其妥適與否，似有討論之空間。本文即針對上述相關議題加以論述。

關鍵字

載貨證券 ； 海上貨運單 ； 運送單證 ； 海商法第78條第1項 ； 連繫因素 ； 管轄法院 ； 海牙規則 ； 威士比規則 ； 漢堡規則 ； 鹿特丹規則

並列摘要

In the current practice of international trade, the Bills of Lading which is issued by carrier to prove the receipt of goods, evidence of the contract of affreightment and document of title to the goods. Due to the improvement of marine technology, the vessel might arrive at the discharging port before the consignee could receive the Bills of Lading and be unable to entitled to delivery. Alternatively, sea waybill is a non-negotiable document where delivery is to be made to the named consignee without the necessity of production of the original sea waybill. The sea waybill is treated as the receipt of goods as well as evidence of the contract of affreightment, but is not capable of transferring either title or constructive possession to the goods. According to para. 1 of Art. 78 of the Maritime Act: ＂Where either the port of loading or the port of discharge is in R.O.C., any dispute arising under a Bills of Lading may be instituted an action in the court of the said R.O.C. port of loading or port of discharge or any other competent court according to the law or regulations.＂ Except for the Bills of Lading, will this clause also apply to the disputes arising from Sea Waybill? Furthermore, even if there is no document of the contract of affreightment issued, could the relationship of contract of affreightment of goods by sea be based on this article as connecting factor to determine the competent court? Recently, Taiwan Kaohsiung District Court Civil Judgement Hai Shang Zi No.10 (2013) says that the dispute arising out of Sea Waybill could apply to the para.1 of Article 78 of Maritime Act as connecting factor to determine the competent court. Is it satisfied or not? It has further discussion on this issue in this article.

並列關鍵字

Bills of Lading ； Sea Waybill ； transport document ； para. 1 of Article 78 of the Maritime Act ； connecting factor ； Competent Court ； Hague Rules ； Visby Rules ； Hamburg Rules ； Rotterdam Rules

參考文獻

王肖卿（2005）。《物流單據與國際運輸法規釋義》。台北：文史哲。Hsiao-Ching Wang (2005). The Meaning of Document of Logistics and International Transport Law, Taipei: WEN-SHI-JE.

吳光平（2006）。〈從國際裁判管轄權之決定基準論我國法上海事案件國際裁判管轄權之決定〉，《中原財經法學》，16 期，頁233-300。Kuang-Ping Wu (2006). Approaches to Assert International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate and the Assertion of International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate in Maritime Matters under Taiwan's Legal System, Chung Yuan Financial & Economic Law Review, 16, 233-300.

吳光平（2009）。〈涉外海上件貨運送契約案件的國際裁判管轄-以託運人或受貨人的保護為中心〉，《玄奘法律學報》，12 期，頁247-301。Kuang-Ping Wu (2009). The Adjudicatory Jurisdiction in International Contracts of Carriage of Goods by Sea Cases: With Emphasis on the Protection of Shipper or Consignee, Hsuan Chuang Law Journal, 12, 247-301.

林秀雄（2008）。〈國際裁判管轄權-以財產案件為中心〉，劉鐵錚教授六秩華誕祝壽論文集編輯委員會主編，《劉鐵錚祝壽論文集：國際私法理論與實踐（一）》，頁121-135。台北：新學林。Shiou-Shiung Lin (2008). Study on International Civil Jurisdiction– Focus on Property Case, Essays in Honor of Professor Tie-Zheng Liu: The Theory and Practice of Private International Law (1), pp. 121-135, Taipei: Sharing.

林益山（2009）。《國際私法與實例解說》。台北：作者自版。Yi-Shan Lin (2009). The Practice of Private International Law, Taipei: Self-published.