定期租船下行使留置權的法律問題反思──由最高人民法院“翔龍案”引發的若干思考

Reflection on the Legal Issues of the Possessory Lien of Charterer under Time Charter

最高人民法院審理的“翔龍案”的判決書存在諸多問題。從表述上看，判決書前後存在矛盾；從邏輯上看，判決書混淆了當事人之間的法律關係；從結果上看，判決書明顯對原告收貨人有失公平。本文提出了四個方面的質疑：一是託運人與收貨人是否當然地受到提單併入運費條款的約束；二是收貨人是否當然地受到提單併入留置權條款的約束；三是當判定提單中併入條款的效力為無效時，承運人是否將喪失對抗收貨人的提貨請求；四是如果在收貨人無需承擔支付運費義務的情況下，承運人是否還有留置貨物的權利。筆者針對判決書存在的上述問題，重新梳理當事人之間的權利義務關係，最終得出應然的審理結論，即法院不應認定期租下的承租人在無留置權的情況下拒絕卸貨。本文還將“翔龍案”與其他同類型案例作了比較研究。

According to information disclosed in the judgment of the Supreme Court in ''Xianglong Case'', there are three problems: from the perspective of the statement, there are contradictions in the content of the judgment; from the perspective of the logic, it confuses the legal relationship between the parties; from the perspective of the result, it is obviously unfair to the consignee. In terms of the problems existing in the judgment, this paper puts forward four aspects of the query. One is whether the shipper and the consignee are deservedly bound by the incorporation clause regarding to the payment. The second is whether the consignee is deservedly bound by the incorporation clause regarding to the possessory lien. The third is whether the carrier will lose the claim to take delivery of goods against the consignee when the incorporation clause in bill of lading is determined to be invalid. The fourth is whether the carrier still has the right of lien when the consignee does not have the obligation to pay the freight. In view of the logical problems existing in the judgment, this article sorts out the rights and obligations between the two parties again and finally comes to the conclusion of the trial which should have been drawn out. This paper also compares the ''Xianglong Case'' with other cases of the same type.