Процитировано сообщение: Голубчик Андрей от 22.03.2008 :: 14:19:52:US COSGA, например
почитал этот закон
правда не cosga, a cogsa (Carriage of Goods by Sea Act )
их несколько :
US COGSA - Закон США о судоходстве, коносаментах и некоторых обязанностях и правах в связи с перевозкой грузов 1893 г.
US COGSA-36 - Закон США о перевозке грузов морем 1936 г.
US COGSA-99 - Проект Закона США о перевозке грузов морем 1999 г.
кроме этого:
UK COGSA-24- Английский Закон о перевозке грузов морем 1924 г.
UK COGSA-71 - Английский Закон о перевозке грузов морем 1971 г.
NMC - Северный морской кодекс
при этом почти все морские линии ссылаются именно на “US COGSA 36” - Акт Соединенных Штатов Америки о перевозке грузов морем 1936 г. (
http://www.cargolaw.com/cogsa.html )
Вы его имете виду?
Или проект от 1999 года (
http://www.marinelex.com/marinelex/cogsasect.cfm )?
Они достаточно разные....
Как я понял из юридической практики, вопрос прямого коноса постоянно вызывает споры именно в связи с неоднозначностью трактования. Противоречивость вытекает из определения слова ПРЯМОЙ КОНОСАМЕНТ, ИМЕННОЙ КОНОСАМЕНТ И РАСПИСКА (SEAWAYBILL). Скорее всего, Вы имете ввиду именно это противоречие между американским подходом и подходом других юрисдикций. Однако в правилах Висби нет такого понятия как ПРЯМОЙ КОНОСАМЕНТ, и документ, обозначенный словом КОНОСАМЕНТ имеет право на индосацию, а правила Висби имеют приоритет по отношению COGSA. Для прояснения этого вопроса стоит обратиться к судебной практики (к счастью, материалов предостатоно):
In recent years the law surrounding straight bills of lading has been the subject of considerable uncertainty and debate. However, in the Rafaela S [2003] 2 Lloyds 113 the English Court of Appeal has gone a considerable way towards clarifying some of the key issues.
The Rafaela S dealt with two points. The first was whether or not a straight bill is "a bill of lading or similar document of title" for the purposes of the compulsory application of the Hague Visby Rules.
The second issue in the Rafaela S concerned the presentation rule. As a matter of common law, it is long settled that under a classic negotiable bill of lading a carrier may only deliver cargo on presentation of the original bill. Pre-Rafaela S, however, it was unclear whether this general rule applied to straight bills.
The traditional view under English law was that under a straight bill, a carrier was entitled and bound to deliver goods to the named consignee regardless of the whereabouts of the original bill.
This situation was most unsatisfactory. It is obviously essential for carriers and cargo alike that each party's obligations on delivery are clear and straight forward - yet there was confusion and disagreement as to whether presentation was necessary in straight bill situations.
It was held that where a straight bill expressly requires presentation to enable the named consignee to take delivery of the cargo, the straight bill is a "bill of lading or similar document of title" for the purposes of the Hague Visby Rules.
In the Rafaela S, the bill included an attestation clause containing the words "One of the Bills of Lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery order". The Court held that these words entitled and obliged the carrier only to deliver the cargo on presentation of the original bill. The Court therefore concluded that the bill must be a "bill of lading or similar document of title" and accordingly the Hague Visby Rules applied compulsorily. This meant that Hague Visby package limitation applied and the carriers were not entitled to rely on the lower US COGSA limits contained in the bill of lading terms.
и второе, очень важное решение - прямой конос (именной) имеет право на индосацию, хотя и только один раз:
The Court also considered what the position would have been had the bill not expressly required delivery of cargo against presentation of the bill. Rix LJ (who delivered the leading judgment) was influenced by the underlying purpose of the Rules - namely to provide an international regime prescribing minimum standards as to the substance of the bill of lading contract. Rix LJ considered that although a straight bill could not be transferred more than once (unlike a classic negotiable bill which can be transferred repeatedly), a named consignee under a straight bill was still a third party who required the protection of the Rules.
Rix LJ also reviewed in some detail the travaux preparatoires from the conference which led to the Hague Rules in 1924. He accepted that at the heart of the conference's concern was the classic negotiable bill which was repeatedly transferable. However, he could not see anything in the travaux preparatoires which clearly stated that straight bills were to fall outside the scope of the Rules and, in fact, there was much material in the travaux preparatoires which suggested that straight bills should fall within the Rules.
Как итог:
COGSA 1992 treated straight bills differently to classic negotiable bills, that did not support an argument that straight bills were not "bills of lading or similar documents of title" for the purposes of the Hague Visby Rules or COGSA 1971.
It almost goes without saying that where a straight bill contains an express provision requiring presentation of the original on delivery, the original must indeed be presented. I say "almost" because some judges, academics and lawyers have found such clauses difficult to interpret.
What the Court did say in the Rafaela S, however, was that even if the bill did not contain such a clause, it was still necessary for the named consignee to produce an original of the straight bill on delivery of cargo. Once more, this part of the decision was obiter (it was not strictly necessary to decide the point) but again (subject to appeal) this is now almost certainly the definitive legal position.
То есть не так всё однозначно, как это представляется изначально....
Полная версия =
http://www.seatransport.org/seaview_doc/Ed_65a/lawcolumn.doc
Страниц: 
