记名提单无单放货的解释论

记名提单无正本提单放货现象在国际贸易中普遍存在,成为贸易欺诈的温床之一。理论界和司法实务界对我国《海商法》中关于记名提单的规定意见不一。问题的关键在于正确运用法律解释方法。采用解释现行法的立场应当以立法者的规范目的为解释目标,不应偏重比较法的解释方法。从文义解释出发,以历史上海商法立法者的规范目的为基础,结合对《汉堡规则》第1条第7款关于提单定义的正确理解,从《海商法》第71条可以推论出,记名提单下承运人须凭正本提单交付货物,这是法律规定的承运人的交货条件,同时也是承运人的合同义务。采用体系解释标准,将我国《合同法》第133条、135条关于货物交付与单证交付的效力规定与《海商法》第71条、78条、79条相结合,可以得出在我国现行法律体系下,提单(包括记名提单)具备物权凭证属性的结论。我国的记名提单法律制度适应了我国国际贸易发展的需要,不应轻言修改。

The Interpretive Position of Delivering Goods Without Original Straight Bill of Lading

While delivery goods without original straight B/L is ubiquitous in international trade,it is easy to result in trade frauds.Opinions of legal scholars and professionals differ in the provisions related to straight B/L in the Maritime Code of the PRC.The key problem lies in correctly assuming methods of interpretation.The correct way to interpret existing laws should aim at pursuing the legislators' legislative purpose rather than emphasize on the method of comparative interpretation.Starting from literal interpretation,based on the regulative purpose of legislators of maritime laws in history,and combining the correct understanding of the definition of the straight B/L in Rule 1.7 in Hamburg Rules,one can infer from Article 71 in the Maritime Code of the PRC that the carrier shall deliver the goods against surrendering original straight bill of lading,which is the statutory delivery term and also the carrier's contractual obligation.With systematic interpretation principles,under Articles 133 and135 of the Contract Act of the PRC that provide for the effect of delivery of goods and documents,and under Articles 71,78 and 79 in the Maritime Code of the PRC,we can conclude that the bill of lading(including straight B/L) has characteristics of a document of title in China's legal system.Since the existing straight B/L framework can well meet the need of international trade development,it is unnecessary to revise it frivolously.