无处分权人订立的合同效力研究

发布时间：2018-06-19 22:36

本文选题：处分 + 处分能力　；参考：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：在我国民法理论界，对于无权处分的争论由来已久，《合同法》解释二的出台反映了这种争论的延续。这种争论一方面说明了无权处分的复杂，另一方面又说明了，学者尚未达成完全的一致。所以，仍有研究的价值。与以往的研究相比，本文在论证过程中辅以司法判决，力图从实务的角度阐释既有研究的问题，，论证本文的观点，这也是本文试图有所创新的部分。包括导论和结论，本文共分五个部分。第一部分为导论，介绍了无处分权人订立的合同效力的争论背景，本文的问题意识，研究方法及既有的理论学说。第二部分讨论从合同的本体展开，即处分的性质，处分权与合同的关系。《合同法》第51条所谓“处分”的性质是指债权行为，尽管司法实践中或理论上都有人主张其是物权行为，但在承认我国物权变动模式为债权形式主义的前提下，“处分”指的就是债权行为，是合同。效力待定说在解决种类物、未来物买卖场合面临的“无权处分是一种常态”的问题时，提出的“处分能力”这一概念。但通过源流考证和语义分析可发现处分能力就是处分权，二者内涵是一致的。通过“处分能力”这一概念不能从合同本体说明处分人无处分权会影响合同效力。合同在订立、生效阶段都不需要处分权。在订立阶段，无权处分构成自始主观不能，合同有效。在生效阶段，合同的生效要件也不包括处分权。这些在理论与实践上均可证明。第三部分，是从利益衡量展开论证的。从本文所引的案例上可发现，实践中，有时反而是处分人主张合同无效，以达到规避因违约承担较大损失的目的。在利益衡量上，无权处分所涉及的三个主体，代表着三种法律价值。权利人代表正义，处分人代表自由，受让人代表效率。有效说与效力待定说可抽象成价值冲突。即保护权利人所代表的正义，还是保护受让人所代表的效率。考察近代以来民法之趋势，效率更值得保护，但并不排斥正义。此外，通过分析权利人与受让人视角下的利益衡量，可以发现，认定合同有效，权利人并不会有实质损害。因此，合同有效既有利于保护相对人，又不会损害权利人，有效说在利益衡量上更加符合民法的价值要求，相较于效力待定说更加完善。第四部分，是从合同法的体系的角度展开的。认定无处分权人订立的合同有效从实质保护的对象来看更接近于可撤销合同，且不会与合同法关于合同因欺诈损害国家利益无效产生冲突。在权利瑕疵担保场合，有效说可使《合同法》第51条与第150条的衔接更为顺畅。优于效力待定说。在《合同法》第132条的解释上，可将其解释为任意性规定，以便于第51条协调。考察自《合同法》颁布以来的司法解释，其态度也是倾向于认定无处分权人订立的合同有效的。这也可说明实务的态度倾向于有效说。第五部分为结论。本文认为，对无处分权人订立的合同应采有效的解释。即处分人无处分权时，合同有效。这也是符合我国《物权法》的规定的。并将《合同法》第51条认定为任意性的规定，以避免直接采立法论所面临的各种成本。
[Abstract]:In the theoretical circle of civil law in China, the dispute over the unauthorized disposition has been a long history. The introduction of the interpretation two of the contract law reflects the continuation of this argument. On the one hand, this argument illustrates the complexity of the unauthorized disposition. On the other hand, the scholars have not yet reached complete agreement. Therefore, it still has the value of the research. In the process of demonstration, it is supplemented by judicial decision, trying to explain the problems of research from the practical point of view and demonstrate the views of this article, which is also an innovative part of this article.
Including the introduction and the conclusion, this article is divided into five parts. The first part is the introduction, which introduces the background of the argument of the validity of the contract without the right of disposition, the problem consciousness, the research method and the existing theory.
The second part of the discussion is from the noumenon of the contract, that is, the nature of the disposition, the relationship between the right of disposition and the contract. The nature of the "Contract Law >" the fifty-first so-called "disposition" refers to the act of creditor's rights, although in judicial practice or in theory, there is a claim that it is the act of real right, but under the premise of acknowledging the mode of the change of real right in our country as a claim formalism, " The "division" refers to the act of creditor's right, which is a contract. The concept of "disposition ability" is put forward when the effect of the "unauthorized disposition is a normal" in the situation of dealing with the kind of things in the future, but through the source and stream examination and semantic analysis, the disposition is the right to dispose. The two connotations are consistent. The concept of disposition "can not be explained from the noumenon of the contract that the disposition of displaced persons will affect the validity of the contract. In the conclusion of the contract, there is no right to dispose of the contract in the stage of entry into force. In the concluding stage, the unauthorized disposition constitutes the subjective inability and the contract is effective. In the effective stage, the contract is not included in the right to dispose of the contract. These are in theory and practice. It can be proved.
The third part is an argument from the measure of interest. From the case cited in this article, it can be found that in practice, in practice, it is a dispose of a person to claim that the contract is invalid so as to achieve the purpose of avoiding greater losses due to breach of contract. In the measure of interest, the three subjects involved in the unauthorized disposition represent three kinds of legal values. The right holder represents justice. A person represents freedom and an assignee represents efficiency. The effectiveness of saying and effectiveness can be abstracted as a conflict of value. That is, to protect the justice represented by the right holder or to protect the efficiency represented by the assignee. It can be found that the validity of the contract is found to be effective and the right holder will not have substantial damage. Therefore, the validity of the contract is beneficial to the protection of the relative and not the right holders, and is more effective in the measure of interest, which is more in line with the value requirements of the civil law, and is more perfect than that of the validity of the contract.
The fourth part is from the perspective of the system of contract law. It is found that the contract concluded by the person without the right of disposition is more effective from the object of the substantive protection, and it will not conflict with the contract law concerning the invalidity of the national interests by fraud. In the case of the guarantee of the rights defect, the contract law can be effectively made to fifty-first articles. The connection with the 150th is smooth and smooth. In the interpretation of the 132nd article of the contract law, it can be interpreted as arbitrariness in order to facilitate the fifty-first harmonization. The interpretation of judicial interpretation since the enactment of the contract law is also inclined to determine the validity of the contract concluded by the person without the right of disposition. This also illustrates the practical attitude. Tend to be effective.
The fifth part is the conclusion. This article holds that the contract concluded by the person without the right of disposition should be effectively explained. That is to say, the contract is valid when the person has no right to dispose of the disposition. This is also in conformity with the provisions of the property law of China. And the contract law > fifty-first articles are determined to be arbitrary, so as to avoid the various costs that are faced directly by the legislation.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】