海上貨物運送人交付遲延責任之研究

Abstract

本論文主要以運送人交付遲延為核心，分別從遲延之認定、遲延損害能否主張法定免責，及遲延免責約款之效力問題出發，探討在我國海商法下運送人交付遲延損害賠償額之計算、責任限制與時效期間等實務運作結果之合理性。 在整體縱向架構上，本文立基於請求權人向運送人主張遲延交付損害賠償責任之基礎點，輔以運送人就交付遲延所可能導致貨物毀損、滅失之直接損害與喪失經濟上利益之間接損害，應如何負擔賠償責任之視角。首先，釐清何謂「交付遲延」，亦即運送人在何種情況下構成遲延交付之問題；其次，當認定運送人構成遲延交付後，就遲延損害運送人得否主張免責，此一問題又可分別從「法定免責」與「意定免責」探究。前者，涉及運送人之責任基礎及舉證責任分配；後者，則受契約上遲延免責約款之效力影響，與此又牽涉運送人強制責任期間範圍與契約自由原則等內涵。 在確立了運送人不得對遲延損害主張免責後，應如何認定該交付遲延損害賠償之數額，以及確定最終運送人所負之遲延損害賠償責任，二者涉及貨物損害之損害賠償額計算基準與遲延損害賠償責任限制之利益。最後，從請求權人向運送人主張遲延交付損害賠償，尚須於一定期間內行使權利，因而該期間經過後之效果，同樣會對運送人交付遲延之賠償責任產生影響，歸結本文所研究之議題。 在各章之橫向結構上，早前之海牙威士比規則並未規定運送人的遲延責任，原則上，運送人就貨物運送遲延所致經濟上之損失，是不予賠償的；除非在運送契約訂立時，雙方已先就貨物應準時交付作出約定，且運送人已被告知或可得而知遲延交付可能造成之損害時，其方例外須負賠償責任。然而，晚近的漢堡規則與鹿特丹規則已明文將貨物遲到納入運送人賠償責任範圍內，並設有一套遲延責任限制標準可循。反觀，我國海商法，由於法典內幾乎未規範「遲到」的問題，導致法院實務在處理運送人交付遲延責任之問題上，以特別法未規定應適用普通法為由，依海商法第5條準用民法之相關規定處理此一問題。惟，陸上運送與海上運送畢竟有別，對於海上貨物運送人交付遲延之責任，本文從國際公約之規範出發，併同參酌各主要立法例具體實踐之情形，藉此檢視我國現行法與實務裁判在處理運送人交付遲延責任之不足，冀希提出具體之修法建議，以茲參考。 藉由本文之探討，期能引起對海上貨物運送中，運送人交付遲延問題的重視，並稍加彌補我國現行法在運送人交付遲延責任規範面上之不足，期待日後修法完善之契機。

The core of this thesis is the liability of marine cargoes carrier for delay in delivery. This paper emphasizes several aspects of the problems such as the definition, exoneration from liability, the effect of the exemption clause, the calculation of compensation, the limitation of liability, and the time for suit period of delay in delivery. First of all, this paper discusses the definition of “delay in delivery” which means in what situations a carrier is considered delay. Secondly, when the goods actually are late to the port and caused damages, is the carrier responsible for it? This question can be answered from two approaches which are related to “the exoneration from liability” and “the effect of the exemption clause” of delay in delivery. The former also refers to the basis of the carrier’s liability and the allocation of burden of proof; the latter is affected virtually by the effect of the exemption clause in the contract which associated with the compulsory period of responsibility and the freedom of the contract. Then, when the carrier certainly is liable for the damage caused by delay in delivery, how to calculate the compensation for loss of or damage to the goods due to delay and figure out the amount of the carrier’s liability? These two questions both are relevant to the calculation of compensation standard and the benefit of limitation of liability. Finally, in the last chapter, the main issue is about the period of time for suit which affects the claimant’s right to suit the carrier for delay in delivery. Under the Hague-Visby Rules, unless the carrier has entered into an express agreement that goods will be delivered by a specific date or within a particular time frame, he is exempted from liability for acts or omissions on his part that cause delay in delivery of the goods. However, recent the Hamburg Rules and the Rotterdam Rules have made the carrier liable for loss of or damage to the goods and for delay in delivery. Besides, it has provided for different limitation of liability in delay from loss of or damage to the goods. Conversely, The Maritime Act of Taiwan, which is based on the Hague-Visby Rules is quite empty of articles dealing with delay in delivery of carrier, so that contributes to the Supreme Court of Taiwan using the Civil Code to dispose of this problem. Unlike the carriage of goods by road or rail, which are steady and safe, the carriage of goods by sea is more dangerous and unpredictable. This paper explores the disadvantages which are stipulated in the Maritime Act and the decisions of the Supreme Court of Taiwan on delay in delivery by focusing on the international conventions and comparative maritime law. Furthermore, this monograph will put the specific suggestions forward for amending the Maritime Act in the future.