| Chinese lien system is established by current laws such as Maritime Law, Guarantee Law, Contract Law, Property Law, and so on. But different laws have different requisitions for the acquisition of lien, which leads to the difficulties in the application of law, especially § 315 of the Contract Law.From the view of the interest structure of the parties to the freight contract, the consignee should not be deemed to be obligated to pay the freight or other expenses, let alone a third party who has nothing to do with the fright contract at all. Imposing carrier’s lien on the goods of a third party who is not the consignor would destroy the balance of the interest between the creditor and the obligor which justifies the lien generally. The carrier does not intend to acquire any right on the goods when entering into the freight contract, and usually pays no attention to the ownership of the goods, so it is obvious that the carrier cannot acquire lien on goods of a third party according to his good faith. Freight can not necessarily add to the intrinsic value of the goods, so the beneficiary is normally the consignor himself, and carrier’s lien on the goods of a third party cannot be justified by the doctrine of “benefit lies, burden lies”. If carrier’s lien on goods can be established regardless of the ownership or disposing right on goods, there will exist conflict between the provisions of the Maritime Law and the Contract Law.For these reasons, it is unable to conclude that a carrier can claim the lien on a third party’s cargo according to § 315 of the Contract Law. Only when the precise meaning of this article is determined by legal interpretation and stable judicial applications, will § 315 of the Contract Law not cause any conflict of interest and violation of the system. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号