论文部分内容阅读
我国海商法第50条第一款规定:“货物未能在明确约定的时间内,在约定的卸货港交付的,为迟延交付.”《汉堡规则》第5条第二款规定:“如果货物未在明确约定的时间内,或者在没有这种约定时,未在按照具体情况对一个勤勉的承运人所能合理要求的时间内,在海上契约规定的卸货港交付,便是迟延交付”.从形式上看,海商法关于迟延交付的规定与《汉堡规则》相似,但实际上是有区别的.汉堡规则第5条第1款,实行的是推定过失责任制,而海商法实行不完全过失责任制.海商法第50条开宗明义:“除依照本章规定承运人不负赔偿责任的情形外”,这一规定是《汉堡规则》所没有的.当然,第50条也没有《汉堡规则》中“或者没有这种约定时,未在按照具体情况对一个勤勉的承运人所能合理要求的时间内……”这种规定.此外还有一个区别,《汉堡规则》规定承运人对迟延交付的赔偿限额为运费的2.5倍,而海商法规定的是以运费为限.
The first paragraph of Article 50 of China’s Maritime Code stipulates: “The goods failed to be delivered at the agreed port of discharge within the agreed time,” the second paragraph of Article 5 of the Hamburg Rules states: “If the goods The failure to deliver at the port of discharge stipulated in the marine contract within the express agreement, or in the absence of such agreement, without delay and as the sole duty of a diligent carrier as the case may require, is a delay in delivery. ” From the formal point of view, the provisions of the Maritime Law on delay in delivery similar to the “Hamburg Rules”, but in fact there is a difference. “The Hamburg Rules Article 5, paragraph 1, the implementation of the presumption of negligence liability system, and the implementation of maritime law is not complete Liability for negligence. Article 50 of the Maritime Code makes it clear: ”This provision is not contained in the Hamburg Rules, except where the carrier is not liable under the provisions of this Chapter. Of course, there is no“ Hamburg Rules ” Or “in the absence of such an agreement, not within the time that, as the case may be, a diligent carrier could reasonably claim ...” In addition, there is a difference between the “Hamburg Rules” The compensation limit is 2.5 times the freight, and the provision of maritime freight is limited.