所有权保留制度的若干问题探讨
|
摘要
为债权的担保而奋斗是市场经济的必然现象保证、质押或者抵押都会提
高交易成本。严格的担保要求，已使分期付款买卖无法进一步得到快速发展。
而所有权保留制度，会使以分期付款（或分期履行义务）为特征的买卖制度及
类似制度得到完善，并将推动我国分期付款型商品交易的进一步发展。
所有权保留制度，是指在买卖（或者互易等类似交易行为）中，买受人
虽先占有、使用标的物，但在双方当事人约定的特定条件（通常是价金的一部
或者全部清偿）成就之前，出卖人仍保留标的物所有权；待该条件成就后，再
将标的物所有权移转给买受人的制度。
由于所有权保留制度较强的灵活性和广泛的适用性，英、法、德、美等
国和我国台湾地区都普遍采用该制度。
我国大陆有关所有权保留的规定体现于新颁布的《合同法》中。该法第
134条规定：“当事人可以在买卖合同中约定买受人未履行支付价款或其他义
务的，标的物所有权属于出卖人。”
在所有权保留买卖中，买受人买受人的主要权利是期待权。所谓期待权，
是指买受人在尚未满足特定条件时，虽不能取得标的物所有权，但却因其与出
卖人的约定，取得了这样一种特殊的法律地位：如果买受人满足了特定条件（如
支付完毕价款）时，应当取得标的物所有权。关于期待权的性质，法学界有不
同的观点。本文认为，买受人的期待权为物权化的债权或者效力扩张的债权。
买受人的期待权就其本质属性而言，属于债权；但因受所有权保留制度特性的
影响，作为债权的期待权的效力已有所扩张，包容了原本归属于物权效力的部
分效力。
所有权保留买卖中，条件尚未成就时，出卖人仍享有对其标的物的所有
权，买受人则享有所有权的期待权。若出卖人此时不是把其在所有权保留买卖
中的地位让与给第三人，而是向第三人让与标的物的完整所有权时，势必会妨
害期待权人（买受人）的利益。如何在这一情形下，进行合理的利益分配，本
IS9霎弓。】币上令八订才
is胃窑／J w｛1寸”．二7匕人
＼、——yVu二nS 丁旺引S
文对此也进行了探讨。文章认为，除应适用善意取得制度外，应当赋予买受人
对该行为的撤销权。同样，在第三人侵害买受人的倩形下，同样应赋予买受人
的损害赔偿请求权。
所有权保留制度中出卖人的主要权利是取回权，即在买受人不履行约定
义务等倩形下将标的物取回的权利。
取回权的行使对已存所有权保留买卖合同效力的影响是怎样的？一直未
形成统一见解。法学界有解除权效力说、附法定期限解除契约说和实现契约说
三种，本文同意第三种观点。因为，解除权是一种受到严格限制的权利，法律
一方面承认它，另一方面又限制它，使其不至于随意破坏当事人的交易努力，
破坏现存法律关系。而取回权的行使则不消灭当事人间的合同关系。
实践中，标的物常基于各种情况而添附致使丧失其同一性。这种情况下
如何确定取回权效力所及标的物的范围，就成为对买卖各方利益影响重大的问
题。文章认为，应当有条件地承认取回权的效力范围及于添附后的标的物。对
于买受人未经出卖人授权而自行处分标的物的情形，出卖人取回标的物的范围
不仅包括标的物本身，还可借鉴美国法律的规定，权利及于因处分标的物而产
生的收益之上。
Guaranty for debt right is necessary development of market economy;
mortgage definitely will increase the exchange cost. The strict requirement of
guaranty has made the further development of installment payment
impossible. The reserving system of ownership will perfect the trading
institutions characterized with installment payment, and enable the further
development of the trade by installments payment.
Under the ownership-reserved system, the buyer in the trade (or in the barter
or exchange activities) own and use the objectives at first, but before the
specified clauses in the contract reached by the both parties are fulfilled, the
seller still claim the ownership. And the ownership is transferred to the buyer
upon the performance of the due duties.
The ownership detaining system, due to its feasibility and adaptability, is
widely used in US, British, Germany and Taiwan.
The regulations which can be viewed as part of this system are found in the
lately enacted ontract Law? where the item 134 says that he parties have
the right to reserve the ownership of the objectives in the seller in the contract
when the buyer does not pay for it or does not perform other duties?
In the ownership reserved trade, the buyer enjoys the right of expectation,
which means that the buyer obtain the legal right of ownership, although he
can not get the ownership of the objective because some requirements are not
satisfied in accordance with his contract with the seller, after he tries to finish
his responsibilities, for instance, pay off the prices. Various views about the
right of expectation can be found in the legal field. In this article, the author
thinks the buyer's right of expectation is the materialized or more effective
debt right. That is to say that the right of expectation is virtually the debt right.
But under the ownership reserved system, the right of expectation has
expanded in terms of debt right, including some effects of the material right
effects.
In this kind of exchange, the seller still have the ownership of the objective if
the clauses have not been completely met and the buyer only can claim the
right of expectation. If the seller transfers the whole ownership to the third
party instead of his part of right, it will infringe on the interests of the buyer.
So this article studies how to distribute the interests reasonably under this
circumstance. The author concludes that the buyer should be granted the right
of revocation except the system of goodwill acquisition, similarly, when the
third party infringes on the buyer's right, the buyer has the right to claim for
compensation.
In the ownership-reserved system, the seller has the right to take back the
objective if the buyer does not perform his responsibilities.
It has not been agreed on how the right of taking-back affects the validity of
the ownership reserved trade contract. Generally there are 3 different schools
of thoughts: revocation right effect theorem, legal deadline attached contract
revocation theorem and contract accomplishment theorem. The author agrees
with the third one. Revocation right is strictly restricted, on one hand it is
admitted by the laws and on the other hand it is restricted by them so that it
will not hinder the endeavor for an exchange of the parties and the current
lawful relations arbitrarily, and the right of taking-back will not devastate the
contractual relationship among the parties.
In
高交易成本。严格的担保要求，已使分期付款买卖无法进一步得到快速发展。
而所有权保留制度，会使以分期付款（或分期履行义务）为特征的买卖制度及
类似制度得到完善，并将推动我国分期付款型商品交易的进一步发展。
所有权保留制度，是指在买卖（或者互易等类似交易行为）中，买受人
虽先占有、使用标的物，但在双方当事人约定的特定条件（通常是价金的一部
或者全部清偿）成就之前，出卖人仍保留标的物所有权；待该条件成就后，再
将标的物所有权移转给买受人的制度。
由于所有权保留制度较强的灵活性和广泛的适用性，英、法、德、美等
国和我国台湾地区都普遍采用该制度。
我国大陆有关所有权保留的规定体现于新颁布的《合同法》中。该法第
134条规定：“当事人可以在买卖合同中约定买受人未履行支付价款或其他义
务的，标的物所有权属于出卖人。”
在所有权保留买卖中，买受人买受人的主要权利是期待权。所谓期待权，
是指买受人在尚未满足特定条件时，虽不能取得标的物所有权，但却因其与出
卖人的约定，取得了这样一种特殊的法律地位：如果买受人满足了特定条件（如
支付完毕价款）时，应当取得标的物所有权。关于期待权的性质，法学界有不
同的观点。本文认为，买受人的期待权为物权化的债权或者效力扩张的债权。
买受人的期待权就其本质属性而言，属于债权；但因受所有权保留制度特性的
影响，作为债权的期待权的效力已有所扩张，包容了原本归属于物权效力的部
分效力。
所有权保留买卖中，条件尚未成就时，出卖人仍享有对其标的物的所有
权，买受人则享有所有权的期待权。若出卖人此时不是把其在所有权保留买卖
中的地位让与给第三人，而是向第三人让与标的物的完整所有权时，势必会妨
害期待权人（买受人）的利益。如何在这一情形下，进行合理的利益分配，本
IS9霎弓。】币上令八订才
is胃窑／J w｛1寸”．二7匕人
＼、——yVu二nS 丁旺引S
文对此也进行了探讨。文章认为，除应适用善意取得制度外，应当赋予买受人
对该行为的撤销权。同样，在第三人侵害买受人的倩形下，同样应赋予买受人
的损害赔偿请求权。
所有权保留制度中出卖人的主要权利是取回权，即在买受人不履行约定
义务等倩形下将标的物取回的权利。
取回权的行使对已存所有权保留买卖合同效力的影响是怎样的？一直未
形成统一见解。法学界有解除权效力说、附法定期限解除契约说和实现契约说
三种，本文同意第三种观点。因为，解除权是一种受到严格限制的权利，法律
一方面承认它，另一方面又限制它，使其不至于随意破坏当事人的交易努力，
破坏现存法律关系。而取回权的行使则不消灭当事人间的合同关系。
实践中，标的物常基于各种情况而添附致使丧失其同一性。这种情况下
如何确定取回权效力所及标的物的范围，就成为对买卖各方利益影响重大的问
题。文章认为，应当有条件地承认取回权的效力范围及于添附后的标的物。对
于买受人未经出卖人授权而自行处分标的物的情形，出卖人取回标的物的范围
不仅包括标的物本身，还可借鉴美国法律的规定，权利及于因处分标的物而产
生的收益之上。
Guaranty for debt right is necessary development of market economy;
mortgage definitely will increase the exchange cost. The strict requirement of
guaranty has made the further development of installment payment
impossible. The reserving system of ownership will perfect the trading
institutions characterized with installment payment, and enable the further
development of the trade by installments payment.
Under the ownership-reserved system, the buyer in the trade (or in the barter
or exchange activities) own and use the objectives at first, but before the
specified clauses in the contract reached by the both parties are fulfilled, the
seller still claim the ownership. And the ownership is transferred to the buyer
upon the performance of the due duties.
The ownership detaining system, due to its feasibility and adaptability, is
widely used in US, British, Germany and Taiwan.
The regulations which can be viewed as part of this system are found in the
lately enacted ontract Law? where the item 134 says that he parties have
the right to reserve the ownership of the objectives in the seller in the contract
when the buyer does not pay for it or does not perform other duties?
In the ownership reserved trade, the buyer enjoys the right of expectation,
which means that the buyer obtain the legal right of ownership, although he
can not get the ownership of the objective because some requirements are not
satisfied in accordance with his contract with the seller, after he tries to finish
his responsibilities, for instance, pay off the prices. Various views about the
right of expectation can be found in the legal field. In this article, the author
thinks the buyer's right of expectation is the materialized or more effective
debt right. That is to say that the right of expectation is virtually the debt right.
But under the ownership reserved system, the right of expectation has
expanded in terms of debt right, including some effects of the material right
effects.
In this kind of exchange, the seller still have the ownership of the objective if
the clauses have not been completely met and the buyer only can claim the
right of expectation. If the seller transfers the whole ownership to the third
party instead of his part of right, it will infringe on the interests of the buyer.
So this article studies how to distribute the interests reasonably under this
circumstance. The author concludes that the buyer should be granted the right
of revocation except the system of goodwill acquisition, similarly, when the
third party infringes on the buyer's right, the buyer has the right to claim for
compensation.
In the ownership-reserved system, the seller has the right to take back the
objective if the buyer does not perform his responsibilities.
It has not been agreed on how the right of taking-back affects the validity of
the ownership reserved trade contract. Generally there are 3 different schools
of thoughts: revocation right effect theorem, legal deadline attached contract
revocation theorem and contract accomplishment theorem. The author agrees
with the third one. Revocation right is strictly restricted, on one hand it is
admitted by the laws and on the other hand it is restricted by them so that it
will not hinder the endeavor for an exchange of the parties and the current
lawful relations arbitrarily, and the right of taking-back will not devastate the
contractual relationship among the parties.
In
引文
1、王泽鉴：《动产担保制度与经济发展》，载梁彗星主编《民商法论丛》第2卷，法律出版社1994年12月第1版。
2、尹田：《法国物权法》，法律出版社1998年版。
3、何美欢：《香港担保法》(上册)，北京大学出版社1995年版。
4、Reservation of Title, Sweet and Maxwell.
5、刘德宽：《民法诸问题与新展望》，(台)中亨有限公司1980年版。
6、王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》第一册，中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
7、黄右昌：《民法总则诠释》，五南图书公司1982年版。
8、[日]赤松秀岳：《物权、债权区别论及其周边》，成文堂1989年版。
9、梁彗星：《民法学说判例与立法研究》，法律出版社1996年版。
10、张龙文：《预告登记若干问题》，载刁荣华主编：《现代民法基本问题》，(台)汉林出版社1981年1月版。
11、梁彗星：《电视节目预告表的法律保护与利益衡量》，《法学研究》1995年第2期。
12、[日]末川：《分欺付款买卖与所有权保留》，《民商法杂志》第一卷第五号。
13、刘春堂：《特定债权与撤销权》，载郑玉波主编：《民法债编论文辑(中)》，五南图书出版公司1984年版。
14、Uniform Commerciai Code——1987, 第9-504，9-506，9-507，9-313，9-314，9-315条，见West Publishing Co. 1987年版。
15、Ronald A Anderson on the Commercial Code Volume 4. The Lawyers Co-operate Publishing Co and Bancoff-Whitney Co. 1971年版。
16、林咏荣：《动产担保交易法》，(台)三民书局1982年增订三版。
17、黄静嘉：《动产担保交易法》，(台)台湾银行编印，1964年版。
18、苏惠祥：《中国当代保同法论》，吉林大学出版社1992年版。
19、王利明、姚辉：《完善我国违约现任制度十论》，载《中国社会科学》1995年第4期。
20、崔建远：《合同的解除》，载王家福主编：《中国民法学．民法债权》，法律出版社1994年版。
21、林咏荣：《动产担保交易法新诠》，(台)三民书局1982年增订三版。
22、苏永钦：《民法经济法论文集》(一)，(台)国立政法大学法律学系法学丛书编委会1988年10月版。
23、Ronald A Aanderson, Ivan Fox David P. Twomey: Business Law-priciples. cases, legal environment. South-Western Publishing Co. 1992年版。
24、[日]我妻荣：《民法大意》(第2版)中卷，(东京)岩波书店1983年4月9刷。
25、崔建远：《抵押权若干问题之我见》，载《法律科学》1991年第5期。
26、余能斌、侯向磊：《保留所有权买卖比较研究》，载《法学研究》2000年第22卷第5期。
2、尹田：《法国物权法》，法律出版社1998年版。
3、何美欢：《香港担保法》(上册)，北京大学出版社1995年版。
4、Reservation of Title, Sweet and Maxwell.
5、刘德宽：《民法诸问题与新展望》，(台)中亨有限公司1980年版。
6、王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》第一册，中国政法大学出版社1997年版。
7、黄右昌：《民法总则诠释》，五南图书公司1982年版。
8、[日]赤松秀岳：《物权、债权区别论及其周边》，成文堂1989年版。
9、梁彗星：《民法学说判例与立法研究》，法律出版社1996年版。
10、张龙文：《预告登记若干问题》，载刁荣华主编：《现代民法基本问题》，(台)汉林出版社1981年1月版。
11、梁彗星：《电视节目预告表的法律保护与利益衡量》，《法学研究》1995年第2期。
12、[日]末川：《分欺付款买卖与所有权保留》，《民商法杂志》第一卷第五号。
13、刘春堂：《特定债权与撤销权》，载郑玉波主编：《民法债编论文辑(中)》，五南图书出版公司1984年版。
14、Uniform Commerciai Code——1987, 第9-504，9-506，9-507，9-313，9-314，9-315条，见West Publishing Co. 1987年版。
15、Ronald A Anderson on the Commercial Code Volume 4. The Lawyers Co-operate Publishing Co and Bancoff-Whitney Co. 1971年版。
16、林咏荣：《动产担保交易法》，(台)三民书局1982年增订三版。
17、黄静嘉：《动产担保交易法》，(台)台湾银行编印，1964年版。
18、苏惠祥：《中国当代保同法论》，吉林大学出版社1992年版。
19、王利明、姚辉：《完善我国违约现任制度十论》，载《中国社会科学》1995年第4期。
20、崔建远：《合同的解除》，载王家福主编：《中国民法学．民法债权》，法律出版社1994年版。
21、林咏荣：《动产担保交易法新诠》，(台)三民书局1982年增订三版。
22、苏永钦：《民法经济法论文集》(一)，(台)国立政法大学法律学系法学丛书编委会1988年10月版。
23、Ronald A Aanderson, Ivan Fox David P. Twomey: Business Law-priciples. cases, legal environment. South-Western Publishing Co. 1992年版。
24、[日]我妻荣：《民法大意》(第2版)中卷，(东京)岩波书店1983年4月9刷。
25、崔建远：《抵押权若干问题之我见》，载《法律科学》1991年第5期。
26、余能斌、侯向磊：《保留所有权买卖比较研究》，载《法学研究》2000年第22卷第5期。