從法律上承認的利益到合法的經(jīng)濟利害(上)-資料下載頁
2025-08-04 13:28本頁面
【正文】 書(2002)鄂民四終字第11號。 [28] 國際貿(mào)易中CIF價格條款使用也較多，不過，由于其中保險單的轉讓通常與貨物權益轉移相一致，因此一般不會產(chǎn)生可保利益爭議。另方面，在對船舶的控制、運輸費用、獲利能力等方面，CIF價格條款對買方較為不利。 [29] J Wong, “Container Transportation and Anomalies in the Law” (1995) 23 ABLR 340. [30] Michelle Taylor, “Is the requirement of an insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act still valid?”Insurance Law Journal, 200099, 1999, , P160. [31] International Chamber of Commerce Incoterms 2000 ICC Publishing SA Paris 1999,24. [32] 也可在Incoterms的 FOB和CFR買賣合同中規(guī)定，買方承擔貨物從離開賣方倉庫時至抵達買方倉庫時止的整個運輸過程的風險，但是，這就改變了兩種貿(mào)易術語的性質。 [33] (1991) 25 NSWLR 699,701,704. [34] Nicholas LeghJones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p137. [35] Nicholas LeghJones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p141. [36]其他賭博保險合同還有根本沒有可保利益的保單、記載“保險人無救助利益(without benefit of salvage to the insurer)”的保單等?！ 37]參Cousins v. Nantes (1811) 3 Taunt. 513, 522和Sadlers’ Company v. Badcock (1743) 2 Atk. 554, 556兩案中法官的評述。 [38] Nicholas LeghJones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p137. [39] Lowry v. Bourdieu (1780) 2 . [40] Nicholas LeghJones QC ,The Elements of Insurable in Interest Marine Insurance Law, Prof. D. Rhidian Thomas (editor), The Modern Law of Marine Insurance (Vol. 2), LLP, 2002，p141. [41] Howard N. Bennett, The Law of Marine Insurance, Clarendon Press. Oxford, 1996, p1415. [42] Thomas Cheshire amp。 Co v Vaughan Bros amp。 Co (1919) 25 Com Cas 242。 [1920] 3 KB 240, CA. 。 John Edwards amp。 Co v Mortor Union insurance Co Ltd [1922] 2KB 249. [43] John Edwards amp。 Co v Mortor Union insurance Co Ltd [1922] 2KB 249. [44] (Brown v. Merc. Marine Insurance Co. 152 Fed. Rep. 411 (1907, CCA 9)。 Hall v. Jefferson 279 F. 392 (1921, SDNY)。 Cabaud v. Fed. Ins. 37 F. 2d 23 (1930, CCA 2)。 The Hai Hsuan () (1958) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 578 (DC Md)). [45] 本保單擴展承保作為保險貨物賣方的被保險人的利益……它僅僅有關被保險人根據(jù)FOB或CFR條款所作的出口，并受制于和下述保險條件相同的保險條件(一直排除拒收風險)，這種條件是假如出售是根據(jù)CIF條款進行本會使用的條件…… [46] Michelle Taylor, “Is the requirement of an insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act still valid?”Insurance Law Journal, 200099, 1999, , P158159. [47]TIC 條款簡稱W/W。保險責任始于貨物運離載明的倉庫或儲存處所開始運送之時，在通常運送過程中連續(xù)，終止于(1)在載明的目的地交付到收貨人的或其他最后倉庫或儲存處所。(2)在載明的目的地或之前交付到任何其他倉庫或儲存處所，其由被保險人用作通常運送過程以外的儲存或分配或分派?；蛘?3)被保險貨物在最后卸貨港全部卸離海船滿60天。以上各項以先發(fā)生者為準?！ 48] NSW leather Co pty Ltd v Vanguard Insurance Co Ltd (1990) 103 FLR 70,89. [49] Materials provided by Associated Marine insurance Agents Pty Ltd: Consultation Melbourne 7 April 2000. [50] Materials provided by Associated Marine insurance Agents Pty Ltd: Consultation Melbourne 7 April 2000. [51] M Mustill and J Gilman, Arnould’s law of marine insurance and average 16th ed vol I Stevens amp。 Sons London 1981 para 32, fn 89. [52] Michelle Taylor, “Is the requirement of an insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act still valid?”Insurance Law Journal, 200099, 1999, , P155. [53] 買方也不能通過將保單轉讓給賣方而使賣方根據(jù)保單索賠，因為買方轉讓保單時沒有可保利益，其轉讓無效?！ 54] (1886) 12 App Cas 128. [54] (1886) 12 App Cas 128. [55] Kate Lewins, Australian Proposes Marine Insurance Reform Journal of Business Law, 2002, P303.
醫(yī)療健康相關推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號-1