學術產出-學位論文
文章檢視/開啟
書目匯出
-
題名 船舶起算貨物裝卸期間之問題研究
The Commencement of Laytime作者 吳宗航 貢獻者 張新平
吳宗航關鍵詞 傭船契約
裝卸期間
到達船
裝卸載準備完成通知書日期 2009 上傳時間 3-二月-2016 12:14:54 (UTC+8) 摘要 船舶起算裝卸期間之問題，我國海商法第52條僅以第1項、第2項前段規範，精簡扼要。然船舶起算裝卸期間涉及之問題，不限於此。以此欲規範千變萬化的航運實務，似有可能發生窒礙。本文認為，英國法院判決與學說見解，足堪我國法院或航運實務借鑑。似應可認為是種「法理」，透過民法第1條，將此外國法例的法源適用至具體個案。又在可預見的將來，支配傭船契約之規範，恐仍係實務上行之有年之傭船契約範本、英國法院判決與學說見解。是無論保險人決定理賠與否、仲裁人作成仲裁判斷，或法院法官審理判決，遇到船舶起算裝卸期間之問題，解釋適用傭船契約範本約定，實須特別注意前開英國法院判決與學說見解，並應隨時注意法律見解變化。 參考文獻 壹、書籍一、中文書籍（按作者姓名筆劃排列）1. 邱錦添，海商法新論，元照出版公司，2008年6月。2. 柯澤東，海商法──新世紀幾何觀海商法學，元照出版公司，2006年6月。3. 施智謀，海商法，三民書局，1999年6月。4. 梁宇賢，海商法精義，瑞興書局，2007年3月。5. 張新平，海商法，作者自版，2009年3月。6. 張新平編纂，最高法院海商裁判彙編上冊（民國73年至第82年），1993年9月。7. 楊仁壽，傭船契約，三民書局，2002年2月。8. 楊良宜，程租合約，大連海事大學出版社，2005年7月。9. 鄭玉波，海商法，三民書局，2003年10月。10. 劉宗榮，海商法的理論與實務，三民書局，2007年04月。11. 賴來焜，最新海商法論，元照出版公司，2008年3月。二、西文書籍（按作者姓名字母排列）1. Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmson, Law of Contract, 13th, ed. London: Butetrworths 1996.2. Donald Davies R. D., R.N.R., Commencement of Laytime, 2nd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 1992.3. Harvey Williams, Chartering Documents, 3rd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 1996.4. John F Wilson, Carriage of Goods by sea, 5th, ed. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, 2004.5. John Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage, 5th, ed. London: LLP Limited, 2005.6. Julian Cook, Timothy Young, Andrew Taylor, John Kimball, David Martowski, LeRoy Lambert, Voyage Charters, 2nd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 2001.7. Michael Brynmor Summerskill, Laytime, 4th, ed. London:Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1989.8. Scrutton, Thomas Edward, Sir, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 20th, ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 1996.貳、期刊一、中文期刊1. 周和平、陳彥百，散裝貨物運載船舶裝卸準備及清艙過程之探討，國立臺灣海洋大學海運學報，2003年10月，頁1至18。2. 楊仁壽，裝卸港口之指定，航貿學報，2008年12月，頁49至51。3. 饒瑞正，新論傭船人之安全港口義務，中華民國海運月刊，1999年 10月，頁21至36。二、西文期刊1. B. J. Davenport, Unsafe ports again, L.M.C.L.Q. 1993, 2(May), 150-154.2. Charles Debattista, Laytime and Demurrage Clause in Contracts of Sale—Links and Connections, L.M.C.L.Q. 2003, 4(Nov), 508-524.3. Charles G.. C. H. Baker, The Safe Port / Berth Obligation and Employment and Indemnity Clauses, L.M.C.L.Q. 1988, 1(Feb), 43-59.4. F. M. B. Reynolds, The notions of waiver, L.M.C.L.Q. 1990, 4(Nov), 453-455.5. F. M. B. Reynolds, Orders under charterparties, L.M.C.L.Q. 1989, 4(Nov), 415-416.6. Mark J. Lawson, Notice of unreadiness, L.M.C.L.Q. 1987, 4(Nov), 410-414.7. Robert Gay, Damages in Addition to Demurrage, L.M.C.L.Q. 2004, 1(Feb), 72-103.8. Trond Solvang, Laytime, Demurrage and Multiple Charterparties, L.M.C.L.Q. 2001, 2(May), 285-295.參、仲裁案件一、倫敦仲裁案件1. The Torm Estrid [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 2852. London Arbitration—LMLN 15, 29 May 1980.3. The Gundulic [1981] 2 Lloyd`s Rep. 4184. London Arbitration—LMLN 44, 9 July 1981.5. London Arbitration—LMLN 103, 13 October 1983.6. London Arbitration—LMLN 114, 15 March 1984.7. London Arbitration—LMLN 143, 25 April 1985.8. London Arbitration 14/86—LMLN 179, 11 September 1986.9. London Arbitration 7/88—LMLN 239, 31 December 1988. 10. London Arbitration 11/89—LMLN 248, 6 May 1989.11. London Arbitration 19/89—LMLN 256, 26 August 1989.12. London Arbitration 9/90—LMLN 285, 6 October 1990.13. London Arbitration 31/92—LMLN 338, 17 October 1992.14. London Arbitration 8/95—LMLN 408, 24 June 1995.15. London Arbitration 10/94—LMLN 387, 3 September 1994.16. London Arbitration 9/96—LMLN 434, 22 June 1996.17. London Arbitration 12/96—LMLN 445, 23 October 1996.18. London Arbitration 9/98—LMLN 488, 21 July 1998.19. London Arbitration 20/98—LMLN 491, 29 September 1998.20. London Arbitration 1/00—LMLN 538, 22 June 2000.21. London Arbitration 11/00—LMLN 545, 28 September 2000.22. London Arbitration 7/01—LMLN 559, 12 April 2001.23. London Arbitration 15/01—LMLN 566, 23 July 2001.24. London Arbitration 8/03—LMLN 615, 12 June 2003.25. London Arbitration 19/04—LMLN 648, 15 September 2004.二、紐約仲裁案件1. The Polyfreedom [1975] A.M.C. 1826.肆、法院判決一、我國法院判決1. 最高法院73年台上字第4050號民事判決2. 最高法院75年台上字第181號民事判決3. 最高法院75年台上字第2100號民事判決4. 最高法院76年台再字第22號民事判決5. 最高法院92年台上第2533號民事判決二、英國法院判決（按字母排列）1. A/B Nordiska Lloyd’s v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd. (1925) 30 CC 3072. The Adolf Leonhardt [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395.3. The Aello [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623 (HL).4. The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 675.5. The Agios Stylianos [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426.6. The Amiral Fahri Engin [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75.7. The Amstelmolen [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.8. The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28.9. The A.P.J. Priti [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37.10. Armement Adolf Deppe v. John Robinson & Co Ltd. [1917] KB 204, at p. 208.11. The Austin Friars (1894) 10 TLR 633.12. Axel Brostrom & Son v. Louis Dreyfus (1932) 38 Com. Cas 79.13. The Batis LMLN 263, 2 December 1989; [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345.14. Brereton v. Chapman (1810) 2 Camp 352.15. Burnett Steamship Co Ltd. v. Oliver & Co Ltd. (1934) 48 Ll L Rep 238.16. Carlton Steamship Co Ltd. v. Castle Mail Packets Co Ltd. (1897) 2 CC 286.17. The Chemical Venture [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508.18. Christensen v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395, at p. 399..19. Compagnie Chemin de Fer du Midi v. A Bromage & Co (1921) 6 Ll L Rep 178.20. Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 56621. The Darrah [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359; [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 435; [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285.22. The Cordelia [1909] P 27 1908 WL 22624.23. The Delian Spirit [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 64; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 (CA).24. The Demosthenes V (NO.1) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 275.25. The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127.26. The Epaphus [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 387; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215.27. The Erechthion [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 180.28. The Evia (No.2) [1983] 1 A.C. 736.29. The Evaggelos Th. [1971] 2 Lloyd’ s Rep. 200.30. Fairbridge v. Pace (1844) 1 C & K 317.31. The Finix [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 415.32. The Fjordaas [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336.33. Franco-British Steamship Co v. Watson & Youell (1921) 9 Ll L Rep 282.34. The Freijo [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 257; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.35. Gibert J. McCaul & Co., Ltd. v. J.R. Moodie & Co., Ltd.[1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 308.36. Graigwen (Owners) v. Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co Ltd. [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 260.37. Grampian Steamship Co Ltd. v. Carver & Co (1893) 9 TLR 210.38. Groves, Maclean & Co v. Volkart Brothers (1885) 1 TLR 454.39. Hall Brothers Steamship Co. Ltd. v. R. & W. Paul Ltd. (1914 )19 Com. Cas. 384.40. The Handy Mariner [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285.41. The Happy Day [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 754; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487.42. The Helen Skou [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205.43. The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212.44. Horsley v. Price (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 244.45. The Houston City [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 148.46. The Innisboffin [1921] 2 K.B. 613.47. Isabelle [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81.48. The Jasmine B [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 39.49. J Glynn & Son Ltd. v. Consorzio Approvvigionamenti Fra Meccanici Ed Affini (1922) 4 Ll L Rep 183.50. The Johanna Olendroff [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285.51. John and James White v. The Steamship Winchester Co (1886) 23 SLR 342.52. John Sadd & Sons Ltd. v. Bertram Ratcliffe & Co (1929) 34 Ll L Rep 18.53. Jones v. Adamson (1876) 1 Ex D 60.54. The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391.55. The Khian Sea [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 535.56. King v. Hinde (1883) 12 LR Ir 113.57. Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Flack & Sons (1922) 10 Ll L Rep 635.58. The Kostas K [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 231.59. The Kyzikos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 122, at p. 127; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1.60. The Laura Prima [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 2; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1. 61. The Leonis Steamship Co Ltd. v. Joseph Rank (No.1) (1906) 12 CC 173; (1907) 13 CC 136 (CA).62. Limerick Steamship Co. Ltd. v. W. H. Scott & Co. Ltd. [1921] 1 K. B. 568.63. The Linardos [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28.64. The Loucas N [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 482; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215.65. The Maratha Envoy [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301.66. The Mary Lou [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272.67. The Massalia (No.2) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352.68. The Mass Glory [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244.69. Metalimex Foreign Trade Corporation v. Eugenie Maritime Co Ltd. [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 378.70. The Mexico I [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 507.71. Midwest Shipping v. D.I. Henry (Jute) [1971] 1Lloyd’s Rep 375.72. Noemijulia Steamship Co Ltd. v. Minister of Food (1950) 84 Ll L Rep 354.73. Northfield Steamship Co Ltd. v. Companie L’Union des Gas (1911)17 CC 74.74. The North King [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 460.75. Ogden v. Graham (1861) 1 B. & S. 773.76. The Oriental Envoy [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266.77. Owners of Borg v. Darwen Paper Co (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 49.78. The Petr Shmidt [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284; [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.79. The Plakoura [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 258.80. The Polyglory [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 353.81. The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338.82. The Puerto Rocca [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252.83. The Radnor [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 73; [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668.84. Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers and Food [1962] 1 Q.B. 42.85. Reynard v. Tomlinson [1896] 1 Q.B. 586.86. Robert H Dahl v. Nelson, Donkin and others (1880) 6 App Cas 38.87. Robertson v. Jackson (1845) 2 CB 412.88. Roland-Linie Schiffahrt GmbH v. Spillers Ltd. and others [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 211.89. The Sailing Ship Garston Co v. Hickie (1885) 15 QBD 580.90. Sailing Ship Lyderhorn Co v. Duncan, Fox & Co (1909) 14 CC 293.91. The Savvas [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 155; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 22.92. The Seafort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147.93. The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500.94. The Shackleford [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154.95. Smith v. Dart & Son (1884) 14 QBD 105.96. The Spear I [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 260.97. Stag Line Ltd. v. Board of Trade (1950) 84 Ll L Rep 1 (CA).98. The Stork[1955]2 Q.B. 68.99. The Sussex Oak [1950] 2 K.B. 383.100. Tapscott v. Balfour (1872) LR 8 CP 46.101. Taylor v. Clay (1846) 9 QBD 713.102. Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co Ltd. v. Moral Brothers & Co and others [1891] 2 QB 647.103. Themistocles (Owners) v. Compagnie Intercontinentale de L’Hyperphosphate of Tangier (1948) 82 Ll L Rep 232.104. The Timna [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409; [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91(CA).105. Thorman v. Dowgate Steamship Co Ltd. (1909) 15 CC 67.106. United States Shipping Board v. Strick & Co Ltd. (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 73.107. Vaughan and Others v. Campbell, Heatley & Co (1885) 2 TLR 33.108. Virginia M [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 603.109. Weir v. Union SS Co Ltd. [1900] AC 525.三、美國法院判決1. Misano Di Navigazione SpA v. United States of America (The Mare del Nord) US Ct of App (2nd Cir),LMLN 335, 5 September 1992. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
法律學系
93651007資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093651007 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 張新平 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (作者) 吳宗航 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) 吳宗航 zh_TW dc.date (日期) 2009 en_US dc.date.accessioned 3-二月-2016 12:14:54 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 3-二月-2016 12:14:54 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 3-二月-2016 12:14:54 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (其他 識別碼) G0093651007 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81201 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 法律學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 93651007 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 船舶起算裝卸期間之問題，我國海商法第52條僅以第1項、第2項前段規範，精簡扼要。然船舶起算裝卸期間涉及之問題，不限於此。以此欲規範千變萬化的航運實務，似有可能發生窒礙。本文認為，英國法院判決與學說見解，足堪我國法院或航運實務借鑑。似應可認為是種「法理」，透過民法第1條，將此外國法例的法源適用至具體個案。又在可預見的將來，支配傭船契約之規範，恐仍係實務上行之有年之傭船契約範本、英國法院判決與學說見解。是無論保險人決定理賠與否、仲裁人作成仲裁判斷，或法院法官審理判決，遇到船舶起算裝卸期間之問題，解釋適用傭船契約範本約定，實須特別注意前開英國法院判決與學說見解，並應隨時注意法律見解變化。 zh_TW dc.description.tableofcontents 船舶起算裝卸期間之問題研究 1第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究目的、方法與架構 2第二節 船舶起算裝卸期間之相關概念剖析 4第三節 問題的提出 12第二章 裝卸港地之確定 15第一節 裝卸港地 15第二節 傭船人之指定權 18第三節 傭船人之安全擔保義務 22第四節 對船貨雙方的建議 37第五節 小結 39第三章 裝卸港地之到達 41第一節 裝卸港地與到達船 41第二節 傭船契約之特別約定 72第四章 裝卸載準備之完成 80第一節 裝卸載準備 80第二節 傭船契約之特別約定 96第三節 小結 99第五章 裝卸載準備完成通知書之發給 102第一節 發給裝卸載準備完成通知書之義務 102第二節 傭船契約之約定 103第三節 通知書之過早發給、收受與接受 110第四節 我國法院判決分析 121第五節 小結 127第六章 影響船舶起算裝卸期間之約定條款 131第一節 船舶於報關時起算裝卸期間條款 132第二節 船舶等待船席之時間損失計算裝卸期間條款 133第三節 船舶等待船席之時間損失計算延滯費條款 139第四節 傭船人於船舶到達時應指示可抵達之船席條款 140第五節 依序條款 148第七章 結論 152第一節 總結 152第二節 建議 159 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2489977 bytes - dc.format.extent 102962 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093651007 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 傭船契約 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 裝卸期間 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 到達船 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 裝卸載準備完成通知書 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 船舶起算貨物裝卸期間之問題研究 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Commencement of Laytime en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 壹、書籍一、中文書籍（按作者姓名筆劃排列）1. 邱錦添，海商法新論，元照出版公司，2008年6月。2. 柯澤東，海商法──新世紀幾何觀海商法學，元照出版公司，2006年6月。3. 施智謀，海商法，三民書局，1999年6月。4. 梁宇賢，海商法精義，瑞興書局，2007年3月。5. 張新平，海商法，作者自版，2009年3月。6. 張新平編纂，最高法院海商裁判彙編上冊（民國73年至第82年），1993年9月。7. 楊仁壽，傭船契約，三民書局，2002年2月。8. 楊良宜，程租合約，大連海事大學出版社，2005年7月。9. 鄭玉波，海商法，三民書局，2003年10月。10. 劉宗榮，海商法的理論與實務，三民書局，2007年04月。11. 賴來焜，最新海商法論，元照出版公司，2008年3月。二、西文書籍（按作者姓名字母排列）1. Cheshire, Fifoot & Furmson, Law of Contract, 13th, ed. London: Butetrworths 1996.2. Donald Davies R. D., R.N.R., Commencement of Laytime, 2nd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 1992.3. Harvey Williams, Chartering Documents, 3rd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 1996.4. John F Wilson, Carriage of Goods by sea, 5th, ed. Harlow, Essex, England: Longman, 2004.5. John Schofield, Laytime and Demurrage, 5th, ed. London: LLP Limited, 2005.6. Julian Cook, Timothy Young, Andrew Taylor, John Kimball, David Martowski, LeRoy Lambert, Voyage Charters, 2nd, ed. London: LLP Limited, 2001.7. Michael Brynmor Summerskill, Laytime, 4th, ed. London:Stevens & Sons Ltd., 1989.8. Scrutton, Thomas Edward, Sir, Scrutton on Charterparties and Bills of Lading, 20th, ed. Sweet & Maxwell, 1996.貳、期刊一、中文期刊1. 周和平、陳彥百，散裝貨物運載船舶裝卸準備及清艙過程之探討，國立臺灣海洋大學海運學報，2003年10月，頁1至18。2. 楊仁壽，裝卸港口之指定，航貿學報，2008年12月，頁49至51。3. 饒瑞正，新論傭船人之安全港口義務，中華民國海運月刊，1999年 10月，頁21至36。二、西文期刊1. B. J. Davenport, Unsafe ports again, L.M.C.L.Q. 1993, 2(May), 150-154.2. Charles Debattista, Laytime and Demurrage Clause in Contracts of Sale—Links and Connections, L.M.C.L.Q. 2003, 4(Nov), 508-524.3. Charles G.. C. H. Baker, The Safe Port / Berth Obligation and Employment and Indemnity Clauses, L.M.C.L.Q. 1988, 1(Feb), 43-59.4. F. M. B. Reynolds, The notions of waiver, L.M.C.L.Q. 1990, 4(Nov), 453-455.5. F. M. B. Reynolds, Orders under charterparties, L.M.C.L.Q. 1989, 4(Nov), 415-416.6. Mark J. Lawson, Notice of unreadiness, L.M.C.L.Q. 1987, 4(Nov), 410-414.7. Robert Gay, Damages in Addition to Demurrage, L.M.C.L.Q. 2004, 1(Feb), 72-103.8. Trond Solvang, Laytime, Demurrage and Multiple Charterparties, L.M.C.L.Q. 2001, 2(May), 285-295.參、仲裁案件一、倫敦仲裁案件1. The Torm Estrid [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 2852. London Arbitration—LMLN 15, 29 May 1980.3. The Gundulic [1981] 2 Lloyd`s Rep. 4184. London Arbitration—LMLN 44, 9 July 1981.5. London Arbitration—LMLN 103, 13 October 1983.6. London Arbitration—LMLN 114, 15 March 1984.7. London Arbitration—LMLN 143, 25 April 1985.8. London Arbitration 14/86—LMLN 179, 11 September 1986.9. London Arbitration 7/88—LMLN 239, 31 December 1988. 10. London Arbitration 11/89—LMLN 248, 6 May 1989.11. London Arbitration 19/89—LMLN 256, 26 August 1989.12. London Arbitration 9/90—LMLN 285, 6 October 1990.13. London Arbitration 31/92—LMLN 338, 17 October 1992.14. London Arbitration 8/95—LMLN 408, 24 June 1995.15. London Arbitration 10/94—LMLN 387, 3 September 1994.16. London Arbitration 9/96—LMLN 434, 22 June 1996.17. London Arbitration 12/96—LMLN 445, 23 October 1996.18. London Arbitration 9/98—LMLN 488, 21 July 1998.19. London Arbitration 20/98—LMLN 491, 29 September 1998.20. London Arbitration 1/00—LMLN 538, 22 June 2000.21. London Arbitration 11/00—LMLN 545, 28 September 2000.22. London Arbitration 7/01—LMLN 559, 12 April 2001.23. London Arbitration 15/01—LMLN 566, 23 July 2001.24. London Arbitration 8/03—LMLN 615, 12 June 2003.25. London Arbitration 19/04—LMLN 648, 15 September 2004.二、紐約仲裁案件1. The Polyfreedom [1975] A.M.C. 1826.肆、法院判決一、我國法院判決1. 最高法院73年台上字第4050號民事判決2. 最高法院75年台上字第181號民事判決3. 最高法院75年台上字第2100號民事判決4. 最高法院76年台再字第22號民事判決5. 最高法院92年台上第2533號民事判決二、英國法院判決（按字母排列）1. A/B Nordiska Lloyd’s v. J Brownlie & Co (Hull) Ltd. (1925) 30 CC 3072. The Adolf Leonhardt [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 395.3. The Aello [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 65; [1960] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 623 (HL).4. The Agamemnon [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 675.5. The Agios Stylianos [1975] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 426.6. The Amiral Fahri Engin [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 75.7. The Amstelmolen [1961] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.8. The Angelos Lusis [1964] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 28.9. The A.P.J. Priti [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 37.10. Armement Adolf Deppe v. John Robinson & Co Ltd. [1917] KB 204, at p. 208.11. The Austin Friars (1894) 10 TLR 633.12. Axel Brostrom & Son v. Louis Dreyfus (1932) 38 Com. Cas 79.13. The Batis LMLN 263, 2 December 1989; [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 345.14. Brereton v. Chapman (1810) 2 Camp 352.15. Burnett Steamship Co Ltd. v. Oliver & Co Ltd. (1934) 48 Ll L Rep 238.16. Carlton Steamship Co Ltd. v. Castle Mail Packets Co Ltd. (1897) 2 CC 286.17. The Chemical Venture [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 508.18. Christensen v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 395, at p. 399..19. Compagnie Chemin de Fer du Midi v. A Bromage & Co (1921) 6 Ll L Rep 178.20. Compania Naviera Termar v. Tradax Export [1966] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 56621. The Darrah [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 359; [1974] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 435; [1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285.22. The Cordelia [1909] P 27 1908 WL 22624.23. The Delian Spirit [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 64; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 506 (CA).24. The Demosthenes V (NO.1) [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 275.25. The Eastern City [1958] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127.26. The Epaphus [1986] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 387; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 215.27. The Erechthion [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 180.28. The Evia (No.2) [1983] 1 A.C. 736.29. The Evaggelos Th. [1971] 2 Lloyd’ s Rep. 200.30. Fairbridge v. Pace (1844) 1 C & K 317.31. The Finix [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 415.32. The Fjordaas [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 336.33. Franco-British Steamship Co v. Watson & Youell (1921) 9 Ll L Rep 282.34. The Freijo [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 257; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.35. Gibert J. McCaul & Co., Ltd. v. J.R. Moodie & Co., Ltd.[1961] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 308.36. Graigwen (Owners) v. Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co Ltd. [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 260.37. Grampian Steamship Co Ltd. v. Carver & Co (1893) 9 TLR 210.38. Groves, Maclean & Co v. Volkart Brothers (1885) 1 TLR 454.39. Hall Brothers Steamship Co. Ltd. v. R. & W. Paul Ltd. (1914 )19 Com. Cas. 384.40. The Handy Mariner [1991] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285.41. The Happy Day [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 754; [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 487.42. The Helen Skou [1976] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 205.43. The Hermine [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 212.44. Horsley v. Price (1883) 11 Q.B.D. 244.45. The Houston City [1954] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 148.46. The Innisboffin [1921] 2 K.B. 613.47. Isabelle [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 81.48. The Jasmine B [1992] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 39.49. J Glynn & Son Ltd. v. Consorzio Approvvigionamenti Fra Meccanici Ed Affini (1922) 4 Ll L Rep 183.50. The Johanna Olendroff [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 285.51. John and James White v. The Steamship Winchester Co (1886) 23 SLR 342.52. John Sadd & Sons Ltd. v. Bertram Ratcliffe & Co (1929) 34 Ll L Rep 18.53. Jones v. Adamson (1876) 1 Ex D 60.54. The Kanchenjunga [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391.55. The Khian Sea [1979] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 535.56. King v. Hinde (1883) 12 LR Ir 113.57. Kokusai Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha v. Flack & Sons (1922) 10 Ll L Rep 635.58. The Kostas K [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 231.59. The Kyzikos [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 48; [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 122, at p. 127; [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1.60. The Laura Prima [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 466; [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 2; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 1. 61. The Leonis Steamship Co Ltd. v. Joseph Rank (No.1) (1906) 12 CC 173; (1907) 13 CC 136 (CA).62. Limerick Steamship Co. Ltd. v. W. H. Scott & Co. Ltd. [1921] 1 K. B. 568.63. The Linardos [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 28.64. The Loucas N [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 482; [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 215.65. The Maratha Envoy [1977] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217; [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 301.66. The Mary Lou [1981] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 272.67. The Massalia (No.2) [1960] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 352.68. The Mass Glory [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 244.69. Metalimex Foreign Trade Corporation v. Eugenie Maritime Co Ltd. [1962] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 378.70. The Mexico I [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 507.71. Midwest Shipping v. D.I. Henry (Jute) [1971] 1Lloyd’s Rep 375.72. Noemijulia Steamship Co Ltd. v. Minister of Food (1950) 84 Ll L Rep 354.73. Northfield Steamship Co Ltd. v. Companie L’Union des Gas (1911)17 CC 74.74. The North King [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 460.75. Ogden v. Graham (1861) 1 B. & S. 773.76. The Oriental Envoy [1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 266.77. Owners of Borg v. Darwen Paper Co (1921) 8 Ll L Rep 49.78. The Petr Shmidt [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 284; [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 1.79. The Plakoura [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 258.80. The Polyglory [1977] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 353.81. The President Brand [1967] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 338.82. The Puerto Rocca [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 252.83. The Radnor [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 73; [1955] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 668.84. Reardon Smith Line Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fishers and Food [1962] 1 Q.B. 42.85. Reynard v. Tomlinson [1896] 1 Q.B. 586.86. Robert H Dahl v. Nelson, Donkin and others (1880) 6 App Cas 38.87. Robertson v. Jackson (1845) 2 CB 412.88. Roland-Linie Schiffahrt GmbH v. Spillers Ltd. and others [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 211.89. The Sailing Ship Garston Co v. Hickie (1885) 15 QBD 580.90. Sailing Ship Lyderhorn Co v. Duncan, Fox & Co (1909) 14 CC 293.91. The Savvas [1981] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 155; [1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 22.92. The Seafort [1962] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 147.93. The Sea Queen [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 500.94. The Shackleford [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 191; [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 154.95. Smith v. Dart & Son (1884) 14 QBD 105.96. The Spear I [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 260.97. Stag Line Ltd. v. Board of Trade (1950) 84 Ll L Rep 1 (CA).98. The Stork[1955]2 Q.B. 68.99. The Sussex Oak [1950] 2 K.B. 383.100. Tapscott v. Balfour (1872) LR 8 CP 46.101. Taylor v. Clay (1846) 9 QBD 713.102. Tharsis Sulphur & Copper Co Ltd. v. Moral Brothers & Co and others [1891] 2 QB 647.103. Themistocles (Owners) v. Compagnie Intercontinentale de L’Hyperphosphate of Tangier (1948) 82 Ll L Rep 232.104. The Timna [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 409; [1971] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 91(CA).105. Thorman v. Dowgate Steamship Co Ltd. (1909) 15 CC 67.106. United States Shipping Board v. Strick & Co Ltd. (1926) 25 Ll L Rep 73.107. Vaughan and Others v. Campbell, Heatley & Co (1885) 2 TLR 33.108. Virginia M [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 603.109. Weir v. Union SS Co Ltd. [1900] AC 525.三、美國法院判決1. Misano Di Navigazione SpA v. United States of America (The Mare del Nord) US Ct of App (2nd Cir),LMLN 335, 5 September 1992. zh_TW
