自比較法觀點論海運承攬運送人之貨物運送責任

海運承攬運送業是臺灣航貿發展的重要角色，尤其該行業之服務範圍已不僅止於提供併櫃服務，成為中小企業之好夥伴，隨著資訊科技的發展，其更提供客戶供應鏈解決方案等加值服務，擴展為當代所稱之「物流業者」，成為國際精品與科技大廠的合作對象。又，國際商會於信用狀統一慣例UCP600之中，已經承認以海運承攬運送業者名義所簽發之提單可做為信用狀交易之押匯文件，由此可知，該行業在航貿實務上的地位幾乎與船舶運送業者一致。而且，漢堡規則與鹿特丹規則都不再將「自有或經營船舶」作為定義運送人的要件，似乎亦表示國際間對於海運承攬運送業此種不經營船舶的業者，允許它們不無該當於國際公約中之運送人的解釋空間。然而，在決定該業者的貨物運送責任時，按臺灣民法規定，必須先判斷其為「承攬運送人」，或是「自行運送而負運送人的承攬運送人」。是故民法第664條介入擬制的要件是否公允就相當重要。觀諸英、美與中國對於其國內與臺灣海運承攬運送業相類行業的法律地位之辨識亦有類似的討論，英、美與中國對此皆採綜合判斷的方式，相較於臺灣採取符合單一要件即受介入擬制的規定顯有不同，而這即為本文的研究重點。此外，自行運送的海運承攬運送人為實務上的大宗，惟其運送責任目前皆須透過法院解釋何謂民法第663條之「其權利義務與運送人同」。因此，本文試透過對近年判決之整理，指出在此相對模糊的貨物運送責任之下的實務現況，再分析臺灣海商法修正草案對海運承攬運送業者之貨物運送責任所可能產生的影響。最後，本文參考前述外國對海運承攬運送業者相類行業的法律地位之判斷標準與海運實務，建議立法者可為涉及以海上運送人為使用人之海運承攬運送業者等新興之物流業者增定法規，以明確其貨物運送責任，並試對實務現況提出其他法律建議。

關鍵字

貨物運送責任；介入擬制；自行運送；海運承攬運送業；海運承攬運送人；貨運代理；無船承運人；無船公共運送人；物流業

並列摘要

Ocean freight forwarders play important roles in the development of shipping and international trading industries of Taiwan. With the advancing of the information technology, ocean freight forwarders have been becoming maritime logistics service providers. They are not only as good partners with small and medium enterprises which relying on consolidation services but also with international technology companies which contracting supply chain solutions. Besides, according to UCP600, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has allowed that a set of Bill of Ladings which issued by a freight forwarder would be acceptable for Letter of Credit. It means that the status of freight forwarders in international trading is almost equal to shipping companies’. Furthermore, the definition of “carrier” in the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules has no more required being a ship owner or charterer, so it is not impossible for freight forwarders to qualify as a “carrier” according to above Rules. However, concerning the cargo liability of ocean freight forwarders in the Civil Law of Taiwan, the court must judge its legal status as a freight forwarder or, as a freight forwarder who undertakes a carrier’s rights and duties assumed by the Civil Law §664 first. And it would be a decisive decision for the liability of a freight forwarder. There are similar situations of freight forwarders’ dual legal roles in English law, Anglo-American law, and China law, but their judging criteria are more flexible than the Civil Law §664. Thus, the criteria for deciding the legal roles of freight forwarders is the core of this study. In addition, it is common that ocean freight forwarders who undertake the carriers’ liabilities nowadays. But the cargo liabilities of such ocean freight forwarders are not stated in the Civil Law or the Maritime Law, it almost totally relies on the court’s explanation of the Civil Law §663. Therefore, this study would try to draw the practice situation and make it more clear through analyzing legal cases. Also, the study would review the influence of Maritime Law Amendment on the liability of ocean freight forwarders. Last but not least, this study takes the judging criteria among different legal systems mentioned above and maritime practices into consideration, and suggests legislating for such emerging maritime logistics providers (including the ocean freight forwarders) which subcontract with ocean carriers to clarify their cargo liabilities. ocean freight forwarders) which subcontract with ocean carriers to clarify their cargo liabilities.

並列關鍵字

Cargo liability ； Ocean freight forwarders ； Forwarding agents ； NVOCCs ； Spediteur ； Transitaire ； Commissionaire de transport ； Logistics providers ； Intermediaries