在未獲清償運費及其他費用之條件下,海上貨物運送人可以主張留置貨物及拍賣貨物求償,海峽兩岸的台灣、中國可以依據現有法律主張法令留置權(statutory lien),海運及普通法龍頭的英國可以主張普通法留置權(common law lien),或契約留置權(contractual lien)。然而,留置權範圍可否擴大適用至非債務人所有貨物,由於事關運送人債權的保障,以及貨物所有權人的權益,頗受司法與海運實務界注意。但現行兩岸及英國法律與判例相關規定並不明確,學者詮釋也有出入,造成莫哀伊是結果。基於海運特性、公平原則,以及國際立法趨勢,本文認為應採取肯定立場,循修法或擴大解釋途徑,允許海上貨物運送人留置貨物求償時,可以擴大適用至非債務人所有貨物。
It is well recognized that a carriers' lien on cargo is the right to retain possession of the cargo as security for the payment of freight or other charges. In both China and Taiwan, the carriers’ lien is termed as ”statutory lien” since they are addressed in maritime code; while in UK, it is called ”common law lien” or ”contractual lien” originated from common law or contract. However, it seems unsettled yet in China and Taiwan that whether a carrier can exercise his lien irrespectively of whether, at the time specified for discharge, the cargo still belongs to the shipper or charterer who is liable to the carrier or the shipowner for the debt.After reviewing all relevant factors and trends of international law, this article suggests to extend the reach of carriers' liens to the cargoes of third parties without personal liability in order to be fair to carriers and promote the shipping industry. Moreover, the provisions of maritime code in China and Taiwan should be construed or revised in this direction.