摘要
货运代理合同在我国属于无名合同,相关司法解释认为应该参照适用合同法第400条的规定解决货运代理转委托的法律效力问题。这种解释未能准确地区分代理、委任、行纪、复代理、相继货运代理等概念之间的区别和联系,司法实务中同案不同判现象仍然普遍存在。由于货运代理人既可以货主的名义,也可以自己的名义进行法律行为,在司法实务中应该区分货运代理人进行法律行为的名义,分剐参照适用民法通则中有关代理的规定和合同法中有关行纪合同的规定,处理货运代理合同的相关纠纷。在此基础上,货运代理转委托行为可以区分为复代理和相继货运代理两种类型,同时应考虑货运代理人转变为承运人的可能性,以及货运代理行业的惯例对货运代理转委托行为的影响。唯有如此,才能实现解释论上的融贯性。
In China, a freight forwarding contract belongs to the category of innominate contract and, according to relevant judicial interpretations, the issue of legal effect of sub-delegation of freight forwarding should be dealt with in accordance with Article 400 of the Chinese Contract Law. Such interpretations fail to accurately distinguish between the concepts of agency, mandate, brokerage, subagency, and successive freight forwarding, thus leading to the phenomenon of like cases differently in judicial practice. In freight forwarding practice, the freight forwarder can ridical act both in his own name and in the name of the principal. These two kinds of being treated carry out juridical act should be treated differently in judicial practice and regulated in accordance with rules on agency in the General Principles of the Civil Law and rules on brokerage in the Contract Law, respectively. On the above basis, the juridical act of freight forwarding should be further divided into two categories, namely freight forwarding with successive freight forwarding and freight forwarding with sub-agency. Also, considerations should be given to the possibility of transformation of status from freight forwarder to carrier, delegation like at the and the influence of commercial usage of the freight forwarding industry on the act of subunder freight forwarding. Only in this way can like cases of freight forwarding be treated alevel of legal interpretation.
出处
《法学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第1期115-136,共22页
Chinese Journal of Law
基金
湖南大学罗马法研究中心横向经费的支持
关键词
货运代理
行纪
复代理
相继货运代理
承运人
freight forwarding, brokerage, sub-agency, successive freight forwarding, carrier
