本文選題：處分 + 處分能力　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在我國民法理論界，對(duì)于無權(quán)處分的爭論由來已久，《合同法》解釋二的出臺(tái)反映了這種爭論的延續(xù)。這種爭論一方面說明了無權(quán)處分的復(fù)雜，另一方面又說明了，學(xué)者尚未達(dá)成完全的一致。所以，仍有研究的價(jià)值。與以往的研究相比，本文在論證過程中輔以司法判決，力圖從實(shí)務(wù)的角度闡釋既有研究的問題，，論證本文的觀點(diǎn)，這也是本文試圖有所創(chuàng)新的部分。 包括導(dǎo)論和結(jié)論，本文共分五個(gè)部分。第一部分為導(dǎo)論，介紹了無處分權(quán)人訂立的合同效力的爭論背景，本文的問題意識(shí)，研究方法及既有的理論學(xué)說。 第二部分討論從合同的本體展開，即處分的性質(zhì)，處分權(quán)與合同的關(guān)系。《合同法》第51條所謂“處分”的性質(zhì)是指債權(quán)行為，盡管司法實(shí)踐中或理論上都有人主張其是物權(quán)行為，但在承認(rèn)我國物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式為債權(quán)形式主義的前提下，“處分”指的就是債權(quán)行為，是合同。效力待定說在解決種類物、未來物買賣場合面臨的“無權(quán)處分是一種常態(tài)”的問題時(shí)，提出的“處分能力”這一概念。但通過源流考證和語義分析可發(fā)現(xiàn)處分能力就是處分權(quán)，二者內(nèi)涵是一致的。通過“處分能力”這一概念不能從合同本體說明處分人無處分權(quán)會(huì)影響合同效力。合同在訂立、生效階段都不需要處分權(quán)。在訂立階段，無權(quán)處分構(gòu)成自始主觀不能，合同有效。在生效階段，合同的生效要件也不包括處分權(quán)。這些在理論與實(shí)踐上均可證明。 第三部分，是從利益衡量展開論證的。從本文所引的案例上可發(fā)現(xiàn)，實(shí)踐中，有時(shí)反而是處分人主張合同無效，以達(dá)到規(guī)避因違約承擔(dān)較大損失的目的。在利益衡量上，無權(quán)處分所涉及的三個(gè)主體，代表著三種法律價(jià)值。權(quán)利人代表正義，處分人代表自由，受讓人代表效率。有效說與效力待定說可抽象成價(jià)值沖突。即保護(hù)權(quán)利人所代表的正義，還是保護(hù)受讓人所代表的效率�？疾旖詠砻穹ㄖ厔荩矢档帽Ｗo(hù)，但并不排斥正義。此外，通過分析權(quán)利人與受讓人視角下的利益衡量，可以發(fā)現(xiàn)，認(rèn)定合同有效，權(quán)利人并不會(huì)有實(shí)質(zhì)損害。因此，合同有效既有利于保護(hù)相對(duì)人，又不會(huì)損害權(quán)利人，有效說在利益衡量上更加符合民法的價(jià)值要求，相較于效力待定說更加完善。 第四部分，是從合同法的體系的角度展開的。認(rèn)定無處分權(quán)人訂立的合同有效從實(shí)質(zhì)保護(hù)的對(duì)象來看更接近于可撤銷合同，且不會(huì)與合同法關(guān)于合同因欺詐損害國家利益無效產(chǎn)生沖突。在權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保場合，有效說可使《合同法》第51條與第150條的銜接更為順暢。優(yōu)于效力待定說。在《合同法》第132條的解釋上，可將其解釋為任意性規(guī)定，以便于第51條協(xié)調(diào)�？疾熳浴逗贤ā奉C布以來的司法解釋，其態(tài)度也是傾向于認(rèn)定無處分權(quán)人訂立的合同有效的。這也可說明實(shí)務(wù)的態(tài)度傾向于有效說。 第五部分為結(jié)論。本文認(rèn)為，對(duì)無處分權(quán)人訂立的合同應(yīng)采有效的解釋。即處分人無處分權(quán)時(shí)，合同有效。這也是符合我國《物權(quán)法》的規(guī)定的。并將《合同法》第51條認(rèn)定為任意性的規(guī)定，以避免直接采立法論所面臨的各種成本。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 劉家安;;善意取得情形下轉(zhuǎn)讓行為的效力[J];法學(xué);2009年05期

2 崔建遠(yuǎn);;出賣他人之物合同的效力設(shè)計(jì)——善意取得構(gòu)成要件的立法論[J];河北法學(xué);2006年03期

3 蔡立東;無權(quán)處分行為法律效力新詮——合同法第51條評(píng)析[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2002年03期

4 蔡立東;;轉(zhuǎn)讓合同效力與善意取得構(gòu)成的立法選擇——基于立法技術(shù)的考量[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

5 崔建遠(yuǎn);無權(quán)處分辨——合同法第51條規(guī)定的解釋與適用[J];法學(xué)研究;2003年01期

6 吳國U

本文編號(hào)：2041621