论交付在票据质权设定中的意义

发布时间：2018-07-31 15:49

【摘要】：交付可否成立票据质权,是票据质押问题的核心争议之一。在《票据法》不承认单纯交付可以转让票据权利的情况下,根据交付不能成立票据质权,即使存在质押合同也不能设定票据质权。《物权法》第224条没有区分证券的具体类型,规定指示性质的票据可以根据质押合同和交付成立质权,与民法理论上指示证券应背书转让的规则相悖。学界认为依质押合同和票据交付可以成立物权法上一般债权质权的观点,则忽略了票据本身表彰的仍是票据权利,而不是一般债权;只有在票据权利依法被确认为一般民事权利时,才可能成立一般债权质权。在此之前,以其为一般债权设定质权存在法理上的困境。在这一意义上,物权法规定与票据法规定直接形成冲突,有必要在立法上区分指示证券和无记名证券:规定指示证券应以背书方式转让和设定质权,无记名证券以交付转让和设定质权;明确违反法定转让方式的法律后果。
[Abstract]:Whether delivery establishes bill pledge, is one of the core disputes of bill pledge. If the negotiable instrument Law does not recognize that the right of negotiable instrument can be transferred simply by delivery, the pledge of the instrument cannot be established according to the delivery, and even if there is a pledge contract, the pledge right of the instrument cannot be established. Article 224 of the Law of title does not distinguish the specific types of securities, According to the pledge contract and delivery, the instrument of directive nature can be established pledge, which is contrary to the rule that the securities should be transferred by indorsement in theory in civil law. Scholars think that according to the pledge contract and the delivery of bills can establish the general creditor's rights in the property law, it is still the bill right, not the general creditor's rights, which is recognized by the bill itself. Only when the bill right is recognized as a general civil right according to law, can the general creditor's right be established. Prior to this, there was a legal dilemma for the creation of pledge as a general creditor's right. In this sense, the provisions of the property law and the provisions of the negotiable instrument law directly conflict, it is necessary to legislatively distinguish between indicative securities and bearer securities. Bearer securities for delivery and pledge; clear legal consequences of violation of statutory transfer.
【作者单位】：宁波大学法学院;宁波大学浙江省民商经济法研究中心;
【基金】：浙江省高校人文社会科学重点研究基地“宁波大学民商经济法研究中心”的资助
【分类号】：D922.287;D923.2

【参考文献】