论文部分内容阅读
从法律解释上看,《汉堡规则》、《海商法》、《鹿特丹规则》都没有赋予货方对承运人、实际承运人(海运履约方)任意选择诉因的权利。交货托运人、提单持有人、收货人等对承运人的诉因一般为违约,只有符合《合同法》第122条规定时才会出现侵权与违约的普通诉因竞合,这一竞合有比较严格的限制。适用我国《海商法》时,基于实际承运人责任的法定性,货方对其诉因一般为侵权,少数情况下才会出现诉因选择权。
From the perspective of legal interpretation, neither the Hamburg Rules nor the Maritime Law nor the Rotterdam Rules gives the right of choice to the carrier or the actual carrier (maritime performing party) to choose arbitrarily. The delivery of the shipper, the holder of the bill of lading, the consignee and other carriers of the cause of the complaint is generally a breach of contract, only in line with “contract law” only when the provisions of Article 122 of infringement and breach of contract will be common cause of competing, this Competition has more stringent restrictions. When China’s “Maritime Law” was applied, based on the statutory nature of the actual carrier’s liability, the cargo carrier generally infringed its lawsuit and, in a few cases, it would have a choice of action.