论无权处分
|
摘要
合同法第51条的无权处分可谓是法律思维的宝藏，涉及民法多方面的基本法律关系。其跨越债法与物权法两大领域，与民法的法律行为、物权变动的模式、善意取得及合同的效力等民事制度紧密相关、互为依存。合同法第51条虽不过40余字，但如何正确理解与解释却是一个极其复杂的问题。
“出卖他人之物的无权处分可谓民法上的精灵，困扰实务界数十年，为其驯服，非彻底究明其本性，不可济事”，但使之驯服，谈何容易?债权形式主义下，更是如此。本文在借鉴前人研究的基础上，参酌世界各国与国际条约的无权处分立法，深入、系统地分析研究了我国的无权处分立法及相关的民法诸制度。
笔者认为我国现行的无权处分立法逻辑极为严谨，只是未能兼顾逻辑与公平的统一。51条的最大缺陷：当权利人不追认或未取得处分权时，合同无效，无处分权人只承担缔约过失责任，赔偿信赖利益损失，对善意相对人保护不周；且与履行不能与瑕疵担保责任构成了冲突。现行无权处分的立法不够完善，应需对其重新建构，但摆在面前的问题是如何兼顾逻辑上统一与法律上的公平。若承认债权合同有效，所有人的追认又如何认定?债权合同有效，无须追认使之生效。如何解决善意取得?一物不能兼存两种所有权的取得方式。
为解决上述的逻辑难题，本文分六个部分进行论述，实质上也可以说是三个部分。第一部分：无权处分的含义及其特征。对无权处分行为及其效力，我国民法学界分歧较大，笔者归结主要有五种观点，其争议的核心是无处分权人订立的债权合同的效力。第二部分：无权处分与相关的民事制度的关系。在此重点论述了与善意取得、履行不能和权利瑕疵担保的关系。第三部分：我国无权处分立法沿革、缺陷及其重构。笔者建议我国的无权处分立法应重
新建构为:无权处分人处分他人财产，合同有效;未得到权利人的追认或者
无处分权人事后未取得处分权，合同解除;买受人善意占有该物的，依法取
得所有权。
本文提出了:无权处分人订立的债权合同，自订立时有效;所有权人的
追认，只是补足交付行为的构成要件;适用善意取得的前提是合同的法定当
然解除，只有这样才能兼顾逻辑上的一致、法律上的公平;善意、恶意只有
在履行时才能区分，且不影响债权合同的法律效力;无权处分人期满不能履
行合同，即为主观履行不能，合同解除，承担违约责任。这些观点前人未所
道也，且.突破了我国现行民法的体系，对合同法的解除制度略有“损伤”，但
这也是债权形式主义下无奈的较佳选择。笔者建议对我国合同法的解除制度
重新设置，增加法定当然解除以完善无权处分立法。
Unauthorized disposition under the 51st article of the Contract Law is the cream of law mind-set. It involves the basic law relationship in several aspects-it is related to the fields of Obligation Law and Property Law, and is interdependent on some law systems such as the juristic act, pattern of property alteration, bona fide acquisition and the effect of contracts. Although the 51st article is very brief with no more than 41 words, it is not easy to understand and interpret it properly.
Unauthorized disposition of selling the other's property is named spirit in civil law. It has puzzled practical circle for decades. In order to solve it, we must understand its nature. It is more difficult in context of the formalism of obligation. Based on using for reference of former research, and comparing unauthorized disposition legislation in international treaties and other countries, the author analyzes systematically unauthorized disposition legislation and civil law systems concerned in China.
The author thinks current unauthorized disposition legislation is very logical in China, but ignoring impartiality. The most serious defect of 51st article in Contract Law is when owner refuses to admit, the contract is not valid, therefore, the person of "no right to dispose" only bears the responsibility of concluding misfeasance, which conflicts with "incapability of fulfillment" and responsibility of guaranteeing the defects in the right. The current unauthorized disposition legislation is not perfect and needed to be reconstructed, but the problem confronted is how to balance the logical unity and fairness in the law. If the validity of obligation contract is admitted, how to solve the admittance of the owner and the bona fide acquisition would be a problem.
In order to solve the logical difficulties abovementioned, this paper falls into six parts to discuss. In fact it has three parts. Part One illustrates the definition and features of "Unauthorized disposition". Different views exist on the behavior and the effect of "no right to dispose" in the circle of civil law in China. The author summarizes them into five
whose disputed point focuses on the validity of the contract made by the person who has no right to dispose. Part two is about the relationship between unauthorized disposition and the related civil system. This part mainly dissertates the relationship among unauthorized disposition, bona fide acquisition, incapability of fulfillment" and responsibility of guaranteeing the defects in the right. Part three discusses the legislation evolution, the defects and the reconstruction of "no right to dispose" in China, the author proposes that the 51st article in contract law should be: contract is valid under the situation of unauthorized disposition of selling the other's property; contract will be cancelled without the admittance of the owner; the buyer will acquire the ownership if he obtains the goods on bona fide.
The perfection of the 51st article needs the related civil system to match. This paper puts forward: The contract made by the person of "no right to dispose" is valid from the time of its conclusion; admittance posthumously of property owner is just making up the composing conditions of fulfillment .The application of bona fide acquisition presupposes the cancellation of the contract. Only in this way, can the legislation be both logical and fair. Good will and ill will can only be differentiated when the contract is, carried out and it will not affect the validity of the contract. If the person of "no right to dispose" fails to carry out the contract on time, it is regarded as a subjective incapability. As a result, the contract will be canceled and he must bear the responsibility of breaking the contract. These viewpoints break the present civil law system. Cancellation system in contract law should be reestablished .
“出卖他人之物的无权处分可谓民法上的精灵，困扰实务界数十年，为其驯服，非彻底究明其本性，不可济事”，但使之驯服，谈何容易?债权形式主义下，更是如此。本文在借鉴前人研究的基础上，参酌世界各国与国际条约的无权处分立法，深入、系统地分析研究了我国的无权处分立法及相关的民法诸制度。
笔者认为我国现行的无权处分立法逻辑极为严谨，只是未能兼顾逻辑与公平的统一。51条的最大缺陷：当权利人不追认或未取得处分权时，合同无效，无处分权人只承担缔约过失责任，赔偿信赖利益损失，对善意相对人保护不周；且与履行不能与瑕疵担保责任构成了冲突。现行无权处分的立法不够完善，应需对其重新建构，但摆在面前的问题是如何兼顾逻辑上统一与法律上的公平。若承认债权合同有效，所有人的追认又如何认定?债权合同有效，无须追认使之生效。如何解决善意取得?一物不能兼存两种所有权的取得方式。
为解决上述的逻辑难题，本文分六个部分进行论述，实质上也可以说是三个部分。第一部分：无权处分的含义及其特征。对无权处分行为及其效力，我国民法学界分歧较大，笔者归结主要有五种观点，其争议的核心是无处分权人订立的债权合同的效力。第二部分：无权处分与相关的民事制度的关系。在此重点论述了与善意取得、履行不能和权利瑕疵担保的关系。第三部分：我国无权处分立法沿革、缺陷及其重构。笔者建议我国的无权处分立法应重
新建构为:无权处分人处分他人财产，合同有效;未得到权利人的追认或者
无处分权人事后未取得处分权，合同解除;买受人善意占有该物的，依法取
得所有权。
本文提出了:无权处分人订立的债权合同，自订立时有效;所有权人的
追认，只是补足交付行为的构成要件;适用善意取得的前提是合同的法定当
然解除，只有这样才能兼顾逻辑上的一致、法律上的公平;善意、恶意只有
在履行时才能区分，且不影响债权合同的法律效力;无权处分人期满不能履
行合同，即为主观履行不能，合同解除，承担违约责任。这些观点前人未所
道也，且.突破了我国现行民法的体系，对合同法的解除制度略有“损伤”，但
这也是债权形式主义下无奈的较佳选择。笔者建议对我国合同法的解除制度
重新设置，增加法定当然解除以完善无权处分立法。
Unauthorized disposition under the 51st article of the Contract Law is the cream of law mind-set. It involves the basic law relationship in several aspects-it is related to the fields of Obligation Law and Property Law, and is interdependent on some law systems such as the juristic act, pattern of property alteration, bona fide acquisition and the effect of contracts. Although the 51st article is very brief with no more than 41 words, it is not easy to understand and interpret it properly.
Unauthorized disposition of selling the other's property is named spirit in civil law. It has puzzled practical circle for decades. In order to solve it, we must understand its nature. It is more difficult in context of the formalism of obligation. Based on using for reference of former research, and comparing unauthorized disposition legislation in international treaties and other countries, the author analyzes systematically unauthorized disposition legislation and civil law systems concerned in China.
The author thinks current unauthorized disposition legislation is very logical in China, but ignoring impartiality. The most serious defect of 51st article in Contract Law is when owner refuses to admit, the contract is not valid, therefore, the person of "no right to dispose" only bears the responsibility of concluding misfeasance, which conflicts with "incapability of fulfillment" and responsibility of guaranteeing the defects in the right. The current unauthorized disposition legislation is not perfect and needed to be reconstructed, but the problem confronted is how to balance the logical unity and fairness in the law. If the validity of obligation contract is admitted, how to solve the admittance of the owner and the bona fide acquisition would be a problem.
In order to solve the logical difficulties abovementioned, this paper falls into six parts to discuss. In fact it has three parts. Part One illustrates the definition and features of "Unauthorized disposition". Different views exist on the behavior and the effect of "no right to dispose" in the circle of civil law in China. The author summarizes them into five
whose disputed point focuses on the validity of the contract made by the person who has no right to dispose. Part two is about the relationship between unauthorized disposition and the related civil system. This part mainly dissertates the relationship among unauthorized disposition, bona fide acquisition, incapability of fulfillment" and responsibility of guaranteeing the defects in the right. Part three discusses the legislation evolution, the defects and the reconstruction of "no right to dispose" in China, the author proposes that the 51st article in contract law should be: contract is valid under the situation of unauthorized disposition of selling the other's property; contract will be cancelled without the admittance of the owner; the buyer will acquire the ownership if he obtains the goods on bona fide.
The perfection of the 51st article needs the related civil system to match. This paper puts forward: The contract made by the person of "no right to dispose" is valid from the time of its conclusion; admittance posthumously of property owner is just making up the composing conditions of fulfillment .The application of bona fide acquisition presupposes the cancellation of the contract. Only in this way, can the legislation be both logical and fair. Good will and ill will can only be differentiated when the contract is, carried out and it will not affect the validity of the contract. If the person of "no right to dispose" fails to carry out the contract on time, it is regarded as a subjective incapability. As a result, the contract will be canceled and he must bear the responsibility of breaking the contract. These viewpoints break the present civil law system. Cancellation system in contract law should be reestablished .
引文
1．王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(五)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
2．王轶：《物权变动论》中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
3．史尚宽：《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
4．谢在全：《民法物权论》中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
5．王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(四)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
6．王泽鉴：《民法物权》《用益物权·占有》中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
7．史尚宽：《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
8．崔建远：《新合同法原理与案例评释》吉林大学出版社，1999年版。
9．梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》法律出版社，1997年版。
10. RS.Atiyah.&.J.N. Adams. the. Sale of Goods, 9th edition. London. Pitman Publishing, 1995.
11. Cheshine and Burn's Modern Law of real Property, 15th edition, Butterwords&Co. Ltd.,1994.
12．王利明、崔建远：《合同法新论·总则》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版
13. Patrick.S.Atigh,The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Clarendon Press 1997.
14. Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract, 1974.
15. B.Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law, Oxford University Press, 1962.
16．史尚宽：《物权法论》，中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
17．崔建远：《合同法》(修订本)，法律出版社2000年版。
18．王泽鉴：《民法总则》，中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
19．史尚宽：《民法总论》，中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
20．梁慧星：《从近代民法到现代民法》，中国法制出版社2000年版。
21．王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(三)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版
1．王利明：《论无权处分》，《民商法研究》(第五辑)，法律出版社2001年版。
2．朱建农：《无权处分行为及其相关制度研究》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第23卷金桥文化出版社，2002年版。
3．梁慧星：《如何理解合同法第51条》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第15卷，法律出版社，2000年版。
4．王轶：《论无权处分行为的效力以物权变动模式的立法选择为背景》，《中外法学》，2001年第3期。
5．葛云松：《论无权处分》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第21卷，金桥文化出版社，2001年版，194页。
6．王利明、王轶：《动产善意取得制度研究》，《现代法学》，1995年第5期。
7．孙鹏：《论无权处分行为——兼析合同法第51条》，《现代法学》，2000年第4期。
8．崔建远：《无权处分辨——合同法第51条规定的解释与适用》，《法学研究》，2003年第1期。
9．张谷：《略论合同行为的效力——兼评(合同法)》《中外法学》2000年第2期
10．王利明：《论履行不能》，《法商研究》1995年第3期。
11．王利明、王轶：《动产善意取得制度研究》，《民商法学》1997年第5期。
2．王轶：《物权变动论》中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
3．史尚宽：《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
4．谢在全：《民法物权论》中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
5．王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(四)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
6．王泽鉴：《民法物权》《用益物权·占有》中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
7．史尚宽：《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
8．崔建远：《新合同法原理与案例评释》吉林大学出版社，1999年版。
9．梁慧星、陈华彬：《物权法》法律出版社，1997年版。
10. RS.Atiyah.&.J.N. Adams. the. Sale of Goods, 9th edition. London. Pitman Publishing, 1995.
11. Cheshine and Burn's Modern Law of real Property, 15th edition, Butterwords&Co. Ltd.,1994.
12．王利明、崔建远：《合同法新论·总则》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版
13. Patrick.S.Atigh,The Rise and Fall of Freedom of Contract, Clarendon Press 1997.
14. Grant Gilmore, The Death of Contract, 1974.
15. B.Nicholas, An Introduction to Roman Law, Oxford University Press, 1962.
16．史尚宽：《物权法论》，中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
17．崔建远：《合同法》(修订本)，法律出版社2000年版。
18．王泽鉴：《民法总则》，中国政法大学出版社2001年版。
19．史尚宽：《民法总论》，中国政法大学出版社2000年版。
20．梁慧星：《从近代民法到现代民法》，中国法制出版社2000年版。
21．王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(三)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版
1．王利明：《论无权处分》，《民商法研究》(第五辑)，法律出版社2001年版。
2．朱建农：《无权处分行为及其相关制度研究》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第23卷金桥文化出版社，2002年版。
3．梁慧星：《如何理解合同法第51条》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第15卷，法律出版社，2000年版。
4．王轶：《论无权处分行为的效力以物权变动模式的立法选择为背景》，《中外法学》，2001年第3期。
5．葛云松：《论无权处分》，梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第21卷，金桥文化出版社，2001年版，194页。
6．王利明、王轶：《动产善意取得制度研究》，《现代法学》，1995年第5期。
7．孙鹏：《论无权处分行为——兼析合同法第51条》，《现代法学》，2000年第4期。
8．崔建远：《无权处分辨——合同法第51条规定的解释与适用》，《法学研究》，2003年第1期。
9．张谷：《略论合同行为的效力——兼评(合同法)》《中外法学》2000年第2期
10．王利明：《论履行不能》，《法商研究》1995年第3期。
11．王利明、王轶：《动产善意取得制度研究》，《民商法学》1997年第5期。