论无权处分的效力——以《买卖合同司法解释》第3条为中心

发布时间：2018-03-13 16:26

  本文选题：无权处分　切入点：买卖合同司法解释　出处：《郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2017年03期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：最高人民法院颁布的《买卖合同司法解释》第3条对以处分权缺失为由请求判定合同无效的主张予以否定,从而间接规定无权处分的效力不受处分权缺失的影响。它与《合同法》第51条效力待定之规定互相矛盾,系《合同法》第132条之反面解释,同时又有利于《合同法》第150条之权利瑕疵担保责任条款的落实。间接规定无权处分效力不受处分权缺失的影响,其一是为了避免和法律产生直接冲突,其二是为了提倡所有权正义,但其根本原因是因为我国物权行为概念的缺失。因此,要改变合同法上无权处分的混乱局面,应当对无权处分行为进行重新界定,并对现行规定予以修改,创设无权处分效力的共同规则。
[Abstract]:Article 3 of the Judicial interpretation of the contract of Sale and purchase promulgated by the Supreme people's Court denies the claim that the contract is invalid on the grounds of lack of disposition right. Therefore, it is indirectly stipulated that the validity of unauthorized disposition is not affected by the lack of disposition right. It contradicts the provisions of Article 51 of the contract Law to be determined, and is the opposite interpretation of Article 132 of the contract Law. At the same time, it is beneficial to the implementation of the right flaw guarantee liability clause in Article 150 of the contract Law. The indirect stipulation that the validity of unauthorized disposition is not affected by the lack of disposition right, one is to avoid the direct conflict with the law. The second is to promote the justice of ownership, but the fundamental reason is the lack of the concept of real right act in our country. Therefore, in order to change the chaotic situation of unauthorized disposition in contract law, we should redefine the act of unauthorized disposition. And the existing provisions to be amended, the creation of unauthorized disposition of the effectiveness of common rules.
，

本文编号：1607190