定期租船下行使留置权的法律问题反思——由最高人民法院“翔龙案”引发的若干思考  

Reflection on the Legal Issues of the Possessory Lien of Charterer under Time Charter

作　　者：张一祯 蒋正雄[1] Zhang Yizhen;Jiang Zhengxiong

机构地区：[1]上海海事大学

出　　处：《国际经济法学刊》2023年第2期122-138,共17页Journal of International Economic Law

摘　　要：最高人民法院审理的“翔龙案”的判决书存在诸多问题。从表述上看,判决书前后存在矛盾;从逻辑上看,判决书混淆了当事人之间的法律关系;从结果上看,判决书明显对原告收货人有失公平。本文提出了四个方面的质疑:一是托运人与收货人是否当然地受到提单并入运费条款的约束;二是收货人是否当然地受到提单并入留置权条款的约束;三是当判定提单中并入条款的效力为无效时,承运人是否将丧失对抗收货人的提货请求;四是如果在收货人无需承担支付运费义务的情况下,承运人是否还有留置货物的权利。笔者针对判决书存在的上述问题,重新梳理当事人之间的权利义务关系,最终得出应然的审理结论,即法院不应认定期租下的承租人在无留置权的情况下拒绝卸货。本文还将“翔龙案”与其他同类型案例作了比较研究。According to information disclosed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in"Xianglong Case",there are three problems:from the perspective of the statement,there are contradictions in the content of the judgment;from the perspective of the logic,it confuses the legal relationship between the parties;from the perspective of the result,it is obviously unfair to the consignee.In terms of the problems existing in the judgment,this paper puts forward four aspects of the query.One is whether the shipper and the consignee are deservedly bound by the incorporation clause regarding to the payment.The second is whether the consignee is deservedly bound by the incorporation clause regarding to the possessory lien.The third is whether the carrier will lose the claim to take delivery of goods against the consignee when the incorporation clause in bill of lading is determined to be invalid.The fourth is whether the carrier stll has the right of lien when the consignee does not have the obligation to pay the freight.In view of the logical problems existing in the judgment,this article sorts out the rights and obligations between the two parties again and finally comes to the conclusion of the trial which should have been drawn out.This paper also compares the"Xianglong Case"with other cases of the same type.

关 键 词：留置权 提单 承租人 

分 类 号：D922.294[政治法律—经济法学]