摘要
最高人民法院第111号指导案例指出,提单具有所有权凭证和债权凭证的双重属性。这一结论在司法实践中被普遍接受,但是提单的所有权凭证属性会与本案中货物所有权保留的约定相矛盾,导致判决的论证过程出现混乱。如今,司法层面已经做出了价值选择即选择保护提单货物买卖基础法律关系而非保护交易第三人,提单的性质之争已经没有意义,除“所有权凭证说”之外的各个学说均是为了解释同一个法律效果而路径不一。逐一分析各种学说,提单性质应具有货物凭证和债权凭证的双重属性,但它们各自有不同的适用领域,前者适用于承运人和提单持有人之间的法律关系,后者适用于承运人以外第三人与提单持有人的法律关系。提单性质的差异不会影响货物所有权是否转移,提单性质只会影响涉及提单的货物所有权纠纷案件中证明责任分配。
The Supreme Court Guiding Case No.111 pointed out that the bill of lading has the dual attributes of a certificate of ownership and a certificate of debt.Now this conclusion is generally accepted in judicial practice,but the transfer of the bill of lading will contradict the retention of ownership of goods according to Chinese Civil Law.The judicial level has made a value choice,which is to choose to protect the basic legal relationship of the cargo transaction instead of protecting the third party in the transaction.The dispute over the nature of the bill of lading is meaningless.All theories except the“ownership certificate theory”are meant to the interpreting the same legal effect by different paths.Therefore,this article believes that the nature of the bill of lading is interpreted into the dual nature of the cargos certificate and the debt certificate.They have different fields of application.The former is applicable to the legal relationship between the carrier and the holder of the bill of lading,and the latter is applicable to third parties and the holder of the bill of lading.The nature of the bill of lading should not be used to demonstrate whether the ownership of the goods is transferred.Also the nature of the bill of lading will only affect the distribution of the burden of proof in the case of disputes over the ownership of the cargos.
出处
《贸大法律评论》
2021年第1期199-210,共12页
Uibe Legal Science
关键词
提单性质
所有权凭证
债权凭证
货物凭证
证明责任分配
the nature of the billing lading
the document of title
the certificate of debts
certificate of cargos
the burden of proof
作者简介
艾敦义,北京大学国际法学院硕士研究生。
