最高法院於處理國貿海商案件時如何定性確定應適用之準據法常攸關全案之爭點，然由於最高法院六十七年度第四次民刑庭總會之見解否認國際海運間通行以載貨證券約定準據法之習慣而認為僅為單方之意思表示並無明示或默示合意選定契約準據法之意思，故類此之海商國貿案件雖於載貨證券訂有準據法合意之條款，法院均以其為單方之意思表示而濕無涉外民事法律適用法第六條第一項「法律行為發生債之關係者，其成立要件及效力，依當事人之意思定其應適用之法律。」之合意，故所涉及準據法依據即為涉外民事法律適用法第六條第二項「法律行為發生債之關係，當事人意思不明時同國籍者依其本國法；國籍不同者，依行為地法；行為地不同者，以發要約通知地為行為地；如相對人對承諾時不知其發要約通知地者，以要約人之住所地視為行為地。」與涉外民事法律適用法第七條：「債權之讓與對於第三人之效力，依原債權之成立及效力所應適用對法律。」，而欲正確適用定性則非探究國際貿易流程及國際貿易交貨條件不為功，蓋原始託運人於將貨物依信用狀所載條件將貨物裝船後取得由船長簽發之清潔提單（Clean Bill of Lading），即持該提單前往銀行押匯將該清潔提單讓售與銀行後，讓售銀行再請求開狀銀行回贖，開狀銀行回贖後即通知進口商付款將提單領回，進口商即憑該提單向運送人提領貨物，細究此一連串之讓售、回贖、付款之過程其法律本質究為涉外民事法律適用法第七條之「債權之讓與」抑或為涉外民事法律適用法第六條第「法律行為發生債之關係」，則非瞭解國際貿易交貨條件，無法正確適用準據法解決當事人之紛爭，本文擬以最高法院八十一年臺上九三五號裁判為典例以探討相類似案件之解決模式。蓋國際貿易案海商案件之審理，審理適用準據法之步驟至為繁複，從涉外民事訴訟序至準據法之確定均待建立完整之適用體系，而我國加入世界貿易組織後涉外案件必倍增，而最高法院長期適用六十七年第四次民刑庭總會決議，否認載貨證券準據法選定之效力並將之不當定性為涉外民事法律適用法第六條，影響我國外貿發展，本文之適用體系及檢視將可為海商國貿案件之重要參考。

　　　　　In choice-of-law decisions, there is but one basic policy, namely, protection of the expectations of the parties. Such predictability is served, and party expectations are protected, by giving effect to the parties' own choice of the applicable law. Party autonomy means that the parties are free to decide the law governing their contract, subject to certain limitations. This principle is articulated in paragraph 1, article 6 of ROC's Law governing the application of laws to civil matters involving foreign elements which provides: "The applicable law of obligations based on legal deed shall be decided by the principle of party autonomy. " However this article is not identical with the principle of party autonomy in that the latter limits her application only to contractual obligations whereas the former includes not only contractual obligations but also obligations based on unilateral deeds. Since this article is numerously invoked in court decisions on international trade and maritime issues, a study to correctly apply this article is worthwhile in view of the fact the supreme court of ROC interprets this article in a sharp contrast to those of both civil law and common law countries and scholars. In this connection, art. 3 of the Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (in force among the European Community Countries 1991) permits the parties to select the applicable law. The choice must be express or must appear with sufficient certainty from the circumstances. The Restatement concludes when the parties have not made a choice, either expressly or by implication, the principal choice-of-law refers to the place of the "most significant relationship" which includes many of the same factors, including party expectations, as would a hypothetical party intent. For the part of English law, the concept of Proper Law is the main idea. As opposed to the foregoing, the supreme court of ROC maintains that the parties can do so only by means of an express choice-of-law clause in their written contract. Taking Civil Adjudication of Thwei-kao Fa-yuan, 1992 Tai-sang 935 for example, the supreme court, irrespective of the express choice-of-law clause written in bill of lading, jumps the conclusion that since the issuance of bill of lading is legally an unilateral deed rather than a written contract, paragraph 1, article 6 of ROC's Law governing the application of laws to civil matters involving foreign elements is, therefore, not applicable. Obviously, the article is narrowly applied regardless of civil law and common law country interpretations on this issue. This interpretation significantly and substantially affects the international trade and maritime decisions. In view of the fact that we relies heavily on international trade, we shall reevaluate this issue so as to facilitate and promote the international trade.