再论无权处分合同的法律效力——以我国物权变动模式的重新解读为基点

发布时间：2018-03-21 10:17

本文选题：债权形式主义　切入点：物权变动模式　出处：《广西社会科学》2014年04期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：我国《合同法》第五十一条规定无权处分合同效力待定,是我国"债权形式主义"的物权变动模式不能彻底贯彻区分原则的产物,不利于善意受让人之保护。然而《关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》第三条在"物权形式主义"的理论基础上认可了无权处分合同的效力。该做法虽然更彻底地落实了区分原则,却不得不接受备受质疑的"物权行为"的概念。事实上,通过重新解释"债权形式主义",将事实行为的合法性也纳入影响物权变动之"事实构成"中,就能彻底落实区分原则,不必大费周章地引入物权形式主义。此外,落实区分原则,意味着无权处分合同是否有效不应由物权人决定,但不能反推其必然有效。当事人的主观状态应当被直接规定为影响无权处分合同效力的因素。
[Abstract]:Article 51th of contract Law of our country stipulates that the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition is to be determined, which is the result of the fact that the mode of real right change of "creditor's right formalism" in our country cannot fully implement the principle of distinction. This is not conducive to the protection of the bona fide transferee. However, the interpretation of the legal issues applicable to the trial of disputes over sale and purchase contracts. Article 3 recognizes the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition on the basis of the theory of "real right formalism". Although the law implements the principle of distinction more thoroughly, In fact, by reinterpreting "creditor's rights formalism" and incorporating the legality of factual acts into the "composition of facts" that affect the change of real rights, the principle of distinction can be thoroughly implemented. In addition, the implementation of the principle of distinction means that the validity of the contract of unauthorized disposition should not be decided by the real owner. The subjective state of the parties should be directly defined as the factors that affect the effectiveness of the contract of unauthorized disposition.
【作者单位】：广西财经学院法学院;
【基金】：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目(13YJC820006) 广西哲学社会科学“十一五”规划项目(08BFX001)
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】