票据抗辩制度比较研究

发布时间：2018-01-03 05:41

本文关键词：票据抗辩制度比较研究　出处：《黑龙江大学》2015年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：票据抗辩制度是票据法的重要组成部分,对促进票据流通、平衡票据各方当事人的利益有重要意义。关于这一制度,各国票据法的规定并不一致。在日内瓦法系国家,票据被视为一种有价证券,美国却将票据定位为一种合同,一种财产。这样的差别性定位令两种票据法律制度在票据法的一些基本制度规则上明显不同。在票据立法模式方面,日内瓦法系国家采取的是以票据行为为逻辑中心的立法模式,美国采取的是以明确票据当事人权利义务为中心的立法模式；在票据权利规则方面,日内瓦法系国家将融票据物质权利和票据内容权利为一体的权利类型界定为票据权利,其他的权利被视为票据法上的权利,美国没有这样的区分,任何的票据合同权利和票据财产权利都被认为是票据权利；在票据流转规则方面,日内瓦法系国家规定的票据流转方式包括出票、背书和交付,美国的票据流转方式则分为签发、流通和转让,背书不是独立的流转方式,它是指示票据流通的必要条件；在票据当事人规则方面,日内瓦法系国家多将记载在票据上的当事人作为调整对象,其他的受票据法调整的主体要少于美国。受各国票据性质定位和基本票据制度规则差异影响,不同国家在票据抗辩制度上也存在明显分歧。主要表现有：日内瓦法系国家从票据行为角度出发界定票据抗辩的内涵,美国以票据债务人可以拒绝履行票据责任的情形为出发点；日内瓦法系国家票据抗辩的当事人被局限在名字记载在票据上的人,美国没有这样的限制；日内瓦法系国家的票据抗辩法律规范分散无序,美国集中于《统一商法典》第3-305条；日内瓦法系国家的票据抗辩类型划分和抗辩事由规则偏重于对票据行为效力的考量,美国的正当持票人制度对票据抗辩的类型划分有关键性影响；日内瓦法系国家的票据抗辩限制标准在于票据债务人对出票人或对持票人前手的抗辩,美国的票据抗辩限制标准在于正当持票人和合同法规则。中国的票据法和票据抗辩制度综合了上述两种票据法律制度的特点,却未能很好地克服他们的不足,在票据立法观念、票据权利规则和票据当事人规则以及票据抗辩类型划分规则等方面出现了一些问题,需要通过拓宽对外研究的视野、调整票据权利规则、修改票据当事人规则和明确票据抗辩类型划分标准等方面进行完善。
[Abstract]:Bill defense system is an important part of instrument law. It is of great significance to promote the circulation of instruments and balance the interests of the parties to the bill. In the Geneva legal system, the instrument is regarded as a kind of negotiable securities, but the United States regards the instrument as a kind of contract. One kind of property. This kind of differential positioning makes the two legal systems of negotiable instruments obviously different in some basic institutional rules of the instrument law, and in the aspect of legislation mode of bill. Geneva law system countries adopt the legislative model of taking the act of instrument as the logical center, and the United States adopts the legislative model centered on clarifying the rights and obligations of the parties to the instrument. In terms of the rules of negotiable instrument rights, the Geneva legal system defines the right type which combines the material rights of instruments and the rights of content of instruments as the rights of instruments, while the other rights are regarded as rights in the law of instruments. The United States does not have such a distinction, any bill of contract rights and property rights are regarded as bill rights; In terms of the rules of bill circulation, the Geneva law countries provide for the circulation of bills, including issuance, endorsement and delivery, the United States is divided into the circulation of issuance, circulation and transfer, endorsement is not an independent way of circulation. It is a necessary condition for indicating the circulation of instruments; In the aspect of the rules of the parties to the instrument, the parties recorded in the instrument are regarded as the object of adjustment by the countries of Geneva legal system. The other subject adjusted by the negotiable instrument law is less than that of the United States. It is affected by the orientation of the nature of the bill and the difference of the basic bill system rules. Different countries also have obvious differences in the bill defense system. The main manifestation is: the Geneva law countries define the connotation of the bill defense from the point of view of bill behavior. The United States takes the situation in which the debtor of the instrument can refuse to perform the obligations of the instrument as the starting point; The parties to the bill defence in the Geneva legal system are limited to the person whose name is on the instrument, and the United States does not have such a restriction; The legal norms of bill defense in Geneva legal system are scattered and disordered, and the United States concentrates on articles 3-305 of the uniform Commercial Code. In the Geneva law system, the rules on the classification of defense types and defenses are focused on the consideration of the validity of acts of instruments, and the system of legitimate holders of bills in the United States has a key influence on the classification of types of defences of bills. The limitation standard of bill defense in Geneva legal system lies in the debtor's defense against the drawer or the holder of the bill. The limitation standard of bill defense in the United States lies in the rules of legitimate bearer and contract law. China's bill law and bill defense system synthesize the characteristics of these two kinds of bill legal systems, but they can not overcome their shortcomings very well. There are some problems in the legislative concept of bill, the rules of bill rights, the rules of parties to bills and the rules of dividing the types of bill defences, and so on. It is necessary to adjust the rules of rights of bills through broadening the field of vision of foreign research. To modify the rules of the parties to the bill and to clarify the criteria for the classification of defense types of bills and other aspects to improve.
【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.287

【相似文献】