永康某科技公司诉上海某货代、美国某货运公司无单放货司法管辖权案评析  

Analysis of the Judicial Jurisdiction Case of a Yongkang Technology Company Suing a Shanghai Freight Forwarder and an American Freight Company for the Release of Goods without Bills of Lading

作　　者：董湘灵 Dong Xiangling(Zhejiang University,Hangzhou,Zhejiang 310008,China)

机构地区：[1]浙江大学,浙江杭州310008

出　　处：《中国海事》2024年第7期56-58,共3页China Maritime Safety

摘　　要：原告永康某科技公司系托运人,上海某货代、美国某货运公司分别为货代、货运公司。原告永康某科技公司向宁波海事法院提起诉讼,两被告以提单中存在纽约仲裁条款为由提出管辖权异议。一审法院认为该仲裁条款属于格式合同,提单上的相关仲裁条款事实上排除了永康某科技公司对纠纷解决方式的选择权,遂裁定案涉仲裁条款无效或至少不构成合同内容。但是,提单多为格式条款,滥用否定提单格式条款效力的理由会削减我国司法公信力。The plaintiff in this case,a Yongkang technology company,is a shipper,while a freight forwarder in Shanghai and a freight company in the United States are the freight forwarder and freight company respectively.The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Ningbo Maritime Court,and the two defendants raised objections to their jurisdiction based on the New York arbitration clause in the bill of lading.The first instance court held that the arbitration clause belonged to a standard contract,and the relevant arbitration clause on the bill of lading actually excluded the plaintiff's right to choose the dispute resolution method.Therefore,the court ruled that the arbitration clause in question was invalid or at least did not constitute the content of the contract.The bill of lading is usually a formatting clause and the abusive use of the reason for denying the validity of the formatting clause of the bill of lading will impair the credibility of China's judiciary.

关 键 词：无单放货 仲裁条款 管辖权 

分 类 号：D996.19[政治法律—经济法学]