本文選題：無(wú)權(quán)處分　切入點(diǎn)：買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同司法解釋　出處：《鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版)》2017年03期 　論文類(lèi)型：期刊論文

【摘要】：最高人民法院頒布的《買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同司法解釋》第3條對(duì)以處分權(quán)缺失為由請(qǐng)求判定合同無(wú)效的主張予以否定,從而間接規(guī)定無(wú)權(quán)處分的效力不受處分權(quán)缺失的影響。它與《合同法》第51條效力待定之規(guī)定互相矛盾,系《合同法》第132條之反面解釋,同時(shí)又有利于《合同法》第150條之權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任條款的落實(shí)。間接規(guī)定無(wú)權(quán)處分效力不受處分權(quán)缺失的影響,其一是為了避免和法律產(chǎn)生直接沖突,其二是為了提倡所有權(quán)正義,但其根本原因是因?yàn)槲覈?guó)物權(quán)行為概念的缺失。因此,要改變合同法上無(wú)權(quán)處分的混亂局面,應(yīng)當(dāng)對(duì)無(wú)權(quán)處分行為進(jìn)行重新界定,并對(duì)現(xiàn)行規(guī)定予以修改,創(chuàng)設(shè)無(wú)權(quán)處分效力的共同規(guī)則。
[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.
，

本文編號(hào)：1607190