Secondly, because the seller can't prove that he has entrusted the booking and paid the booking fee, the freight forwarder naturally has no contractual obligation to deliver the transport documents issued by the carrier for handling the entrusted matters. It completely ignores the documentary function of the bill of lading and strictly explains the relativity of the contract, which deviates from the legislative intention of Article 42 of Maritime Law. The purpose of legislation is to solve the problem of contract relativity, that is, although the seller has not signed a contract of carriage of goods, he can directly become the shipper of bill of lading according to law and enjoy the rights of bill of lading. On the other hand, unless the seller agrees, the consignment contract between the buyer and the carrier has no right to issue a bill of lading to the buyer, because this actually constitutes an infringement of the seller's ownership.
What's more, the domestic seller's delivery of the goods to the freight forwarder is actually an act of fulfilling the delivery obligation under the FOB trade contract. For freight forwarders, this act is only a factual act in civil law, not a civil legal act, and cannot be used as the consideration for freight forwarders' obligation to deliver documents. As the carrier's agent, the seller gives the goods to the freight forwarder, which is a transfer of the possession of the goods, and the legal relationship of property rights has changed, but this behavior turns out to be a factual act, not a civil legal act, which is really incredible. As far as consideration is concerned, because Article 42 of Maritime Law has clearly stipulated the shipper status of the seller, it is directly stipulated by law, and the support of consideration theory is not needed at this time.
How does the seller protect himself under FOB terms? Comrade Wang Yang also pointed out that the transport document stipulated in the letter of credit in such disputes is often not a bill of lading, but a freight receipt. In fact, this is the trap of foreign buyers. The seller accepted this letter of credit, and the settlement cannot be guaranteed, because the goods have been taken away by the buyer with the bill of lading. In short, the buyer should master the bill of lading by himself and ask the carrier to issue a bill of lading with instructions, instead of agreeing to settle foreign exchange with a freight receipt. God helps those who help themselves. It is the seller's right to ask the carrier to issue a bill of lading. Giving up rights means bearing the consequences of giving up rights.
The question to whom the carrier or his agent should issue the bill of lading under FOB terms discussed in this paper has long been an axiom in international practice, but there is such a dispute in China. Whether the bill of lading itself is the contract of carriage or the proof of the contract of carriage, the viewpoint adopted by China's maritime law seems to be inconsistent with international practice, which has already affected China's judicial practice. Comrade Wang Yang suggested that in this case, the FOB seller should sign a contract with the freight forwarder, clarifying the freight forwarder's obligation to issue the bill of lading, which is really superfluous. According to Comrade Wang Yang's viewpoint, it can almost be concluded that under FOB conditions, the seller has no right to obtain the bill of lading issued by the carrier or its agent.