查詢結果分析
來源資料
相關文獻
- 海上運送契約運費保付條款之效力
- 我國新海商法「貨物運送人責任制度」論析
- 論引水契約之法律性質
- The Determination of Applicable Law on Multimodal Transport Contracts under English Law and R.O.C. Law
- 論我國海商法下貨物運送人之基本義務及強制責任
- 複合運送及轉船運送之運送責任研究
- 國際運送人責任體制之變遷--海上貨物運送國際公約新趨勢與日本法制之理論及實務
- 從《鹿特丹規則》中運送人責任規範給臺灣《海商法》修改幾點建議
- 海上運送人責任期間之法律適用--簡評最高法院九七年度臺上字第一一四七號判決
- 國際海商立法多元化趨勢下對複合運送提單條款之建議
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 海上運送契約運費保付條款之效力=The Effect of Freight Clause in Contract of Carriage by Sea |
---|---|
作者 | 張志清; | 書刊名 | 運輸學刊 |
卷期 | 15:2 2003.06[民92.06] |
頁次 | 頁193-206 |
分類號 | 557.445 |
關鍵詞 | 運費保付條款; 運送人責任; 海商法; Freight clause; Carrier's liability; Maritime law; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 件貨運送契約、載貨證券及論程傭船契約常含有一運費保付條款 , 規定運費 在運送人收受貨物時視為已賺取 , 並應予支付 , 且在任何情況下 ( 包括貨物毀損或減失時)皆不予退還。此等條款之效力常受質疑 , 認為係減輕運送人賠償責任 , 依海商法第六十一條 , 應予無效。此外 , 基於承攬契約之性質 , 運送人未完成運送 , 亦不得請求運費。本文由運費之性質分析運費保付條款之效力 , 認為運送之收取為運送人之權利而非義務 , 不在海商法第六十一條強制規範之範圍。而海商 法第三章 ( 第四十三條至第四十五條、第四十七條主第四十九條 ) 對運費收取之規定為任意規定 , 基於契約自由原則 , 運費條款應優先適用。 |
英文摘要 | Liner shipping contracts, bills of lading and voyage charterparties usually contain a freight clause, which provides that "Freight shall be deemed fully earned on receipt of the Goods by the Carrier and shall be paid and non-returnable in any event. " The effect of such a clause is often arguable because it may lessen the carrier 's statutory liabilities, and thus shall be null or of no effect based on Article 61 of the ROC Maritime Law (or Article 3(8) of the Hague Rules). Also, in absence of provision to the contrary, the carrier is not entitled to contractual freight if he fails to deliver the goods safely at agreed destination. This article analyzes the effect of the freight clause based on the nature of freight. The freight clause is effective because it concerns the carrier's right instead of statutory liabilities. Also, those provisions governing freight in the ROC Maritime Law are not compulsory, but arbitrary, and thus the freight clause should be given priority in effect. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。