지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
When goods are loaded on a time-chartered ship, it is open difficult to determine which party is the carrier. It arises because bills of lading often do not clearly identify the carrier and because of the specific nature of time charters.
Some courts look to principles of agency law-including implied and apparent authority-to determine whether the bill was signed on behalf of the owner or charterer. Relevant factors include the type of charter, who signed the bill of lading, whose form was used, and under whose authority the bill of lading was issued. The technicalities of agency law are not always strictly followed, however, and the modern trend is to confer carrier status on all parties-both owner and charterers-who participate in the carriage transaction.
In many cases, the lines of authority are not clear, as when a bill of lading is signed by the charterer "for the master." In order to determine who is the carrier, the court must examine the authority of the charterer to sign on behalf of the master and the master's authority to bind the shipowner. A contract of carriage with an owner may be entered into either directly between the parties, or by virtue of a charterer's authority to bind the owner by signing bills "for the master." Generally, when the charterer or his agent signs "for the master," the shipowner is bound as a carrier. If it is shown, however, that the signature "for the master" was without the authority of the shipowner, the latter is not personally bound and does not become a carrier by virtue of the charterer's signature.
The usual approach to the issue of who is the carrier assumes that there can be only one contractual carrier, either the owner or charterer, but not both. Some courts, however, take a more expansive approach, holding that there can be more than one carrier.
Carriage of goods by sea can be characterized as a joint venture between the owners and the charterers, because they share the responsibilities of a carrier under the Hague-Visby Rules. As a result of the shared responsibilities, the carrier and the charterer should be held jointly and severally responsible as carrier.
Some courts look to principles of agency law-including implied and apparent authority-to determine whether the bill was signed on behalf of the owner or charterer. Relevant factors include the type of charter, who signed the bill of lading, whose form was used, and under whose authority the bill of lading was issued. The technicalities of agency law are not always strictly followed, however, and the modern trend is to confer carrier status on all parties-both owner and charterers-who participate in the carriage transaction.
In many cases, the lines of authority are not clear, as when a bill of lading is signed by the charterer "for the master." In order to determine who is the carrier, the court must examine the authority of the charterer to sign on behalf of the master and the master's authority to bind the shipowner. A contract of carriage with an owner may be entered into either directly between the parties, or by virtue of a charterer's authority to bind the owner by signing bills "for the master." Generally, when the charterer or his agent signs "for the master," the shipowner is bound as a carrier. If it is shown, however, that the signature "for the master" was without the authority of the shipowner, the latter is not personally bound and does not become a carrier by virtue of the charterer's signature.
The usual approach to the issue of who is the carrier assumes that there can be only one contractual carrier, either the owner or charterer, but not both. Some courts, however, take a more expansive approach, holding that there can be more than one carrier.
Carriage of goods by sea can be characterized as a joint venture between the owners and the charterers, because they share the responsibilities of a carrier under the Hague-Visby Rules. As a result of the shared responsibilities, the carrier and the charterer should be held jointly and severally responsible as carrier.
목차
Ⅰ. 머리말
Ⅱ. 비교법적 고찰 및 판례동향
Ⅲ. 국제협약의 태도
Ⅳ. 선하증권상의 운송인특정약관
Ⅴ. 맺음말
참고문헌
ABSTRACT
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
A Study on the Identification between Shipowner and Charterer to Sue for the Liability of Transportation : Focused on English and Canadian Common Law
통상정보연구
2006 .12
-
상법 제5편(해상)에 사용되는 용어의 적절성
한양법학
2010 .02
-
상법상 실제운송인의 손해배상책임에 관한 비판적 고찰과 입법론
무역상무연구
2016 .02
-
定期傭船契約에서 船主 및 傭船者의 제3자에 대한 책임문제에 관한 약간의 고찰
한국해법학회지
2004 .01
-
定期傭船者의 責任이 否認된 도쿄 세나토르호 사건(대법원 2001.7.10.선고99다58327사건)
한국해법학회지
2002 .01
-
용선계약하에서 위험물취급에 관한 고찰 : 영미법논리를 중심으로
통상정보연구
2009 .03
-
화물선취보증서와 보증도의 법적 지위
경영법률
2009 .01
-
정기용선계약에서 제3자 화물손해 책임에 관한 연구
통상정보연구
2013 .06
-
LCC(저비용항공사)와 FSC(전통항공사)의 재무적 특징 및 차이점에 관한 실증적 연구
관광레저연구
2012 .09
-
2001年度 海商法 관련 重要判例 評釋
한국해법학회지
2002 .01
-
定期傭船하에서 발행된 船荷證券상의 運送人의 確定과 히말라야약관의 적용범위에 대한 英國 貴族院의 Starsin 사건(2003.3.13.)
한국해법학회지
2007 .01
-
해상운송인의 운송물에 관한 주의의무와 FIO약정의유효성에 관한 연구
무역연구
2018 .01
-
海上運送法에서 契約自由의 原則과 그 制限
기업법연구
2004 .12
-
저가항공 서비스에 관한 비교 연구
한국항공경영학회지
2008 .01
-
정기용선계약 하에서 적하손해에 대한 선박소유자와 정기용선자 간의 책임관계
무역학회지
2001 .09
-
신용장거래에서 용선계약부 선하증권의 심사에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2009 .04
-
정기용선계약에서 선박 및 선장에 대한 용선자 지시의 범위와 해석에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2014 .02
-
항해용선계약에서 체박손해금에 관한 사례연구: 국내 판결을 중심으로
무역학회지
2020 .08
이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-326-002848459