【摘要】：所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)系一甚為復(fù)雜晦澀的權(quán)利,其體系之大,理論之深,引古今中外名家學(xué)者紛紛議之。本文由引言、正文、結(jié)論三部分組成。引言介紹了本文的選題背景、研究范圍,以及提出并且分析、總結(jié)本文論述的焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。正文共分四部分對(duì)所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)保護(hù)進(jìn)行研究。第一,所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)的基本理論。其概念界定為買(mǎi)方除基于保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同而產(chǎn)生的債權(quán)性質(zhì)的所有權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)請(qǐng)求以及支付價(jià)金義務(wù)以外的法律地位,即所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方受到法律特別保護(hù)的法律地位。期待權(quán)及既得權(quán)之區(qū)別,期待權(quán)與既得權(quán)是民法權(quán)利之縱軸分類(lèi),體系位于人身財(cái)產(chǎn)分類(lèi)、支配請(qǐng)求形成抗辯權(quán)之上。既得權(quán)成立條件全然具備,確定性程度高,期待權(quán)系一種應(yīng)受保障的"期待"。期待權(quán)具有一種"預(yù)備"之屬性。與形成權(quán)之比較,二者取得權(quán)利方式不同。形成權(quán)明顯具有單次耗損的屬性,相同內(nèi)容的形成權(quán)不可重復(fù)延續(xù),而期待權(quán)是一個(gè)逐漸演變成完全權(quán)利的權(quán)利。所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)的性質(zhì)為兼具物權(quán)、債權(quán)屬性的特殊權(quán)利。第二,注意所有權(quán)保留與相關(guān)合同制度的區(qū)別。與附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)制度相比,所有權(quán)保留與附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)并無(wú)本質(zhì)不同,究其核心,均為買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中買(mǎi)主先取得標(biāo)的物占有,而所有權(quán)在價(jià)金清償之前由賣(mài)方保留。所有權(quán)保留制度與附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)制度基本一致,其適用范圍具有極大的相似性。所有權(quán)保留與附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)制度的特質(zhì)也是極度相似。所有權(quán)保留和附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)制度只因其"生長(zhǎng)"環(huán)境之異,所屬法系之異,因而名稱不同,其本質(zhì)并無(wú)明顯不同。附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)行為與所有權(quán)保留制度、附條件買(mǎi)賣(mài)制度完全不同。當(dāng)所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同發(fā)生糾紛時(shí),若雙方當(dāng)事人未對(duì)合同之效力附條件,僅對(duì)標(biāo)的物所有權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移附條件,適用《合同法》45條之規(guī)定,明顯不妥,適用范圍也大相徑庭。第三,所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)之保護(hù)的內(nèi)容極為豐富。期待權(quán)已經(jīng)明確系一種受法律保護(hù)具有獨(dú)特法律地位之權(quán)利,并且具有獨(dú)立的權(quán)利機(jī)能,如期待權(quán)得處分,得善意取得,在其之上設(shè)立擔(dān)保權(quán)利等。另外,其當(dāng)然具有可讓與性。期待權(quán)讓與與"削梨說(shuō)"、"一物二賣(mài)"之區(qū)別也是期待權(quán)讓與之重要部分。其與善意取得的關(guān)系本文主要將其分為三種情況研究,認(rèn)為前兩種的善意取得可以成立,但是期待權(quán)不存在的情況下,善意取得不能成立。在擔(dān)保物權(quán)上,期待權(quán)之上可以增設(shè)抵押權(quán),動(dòng)產(chǎn)質(zhì)權(quán),以及留置權(quán)。最后,所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)的保護(hù)問(wèn)題應(yīng)該從立法和司法上解決。立法上,合同法需要對(duì)所有權(quán)保留的設(shè)定加以明確,還應(yīng)將期待權(quán)作為獨(dú)立權(quán)利保護(hù),其他立法上我國(guó)可以借鑒德國(guó)民法典、臺(tái)灣民法附條件之法律行為的規(guī)定等。司法上,我國(guó)《買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同解釋》中取回權(quán)應(yīng)加以限制,而回贖權(quán)是所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)方期待權(quán)保護(hù)之有利途徑。結(jié)論部分對(duì)全文的主要觀點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了簡(jiǎn)單總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:The buyer's right of expectation is a complicated and obscure right whose system and theory are so deep that it has been discussed by famous scholars all over the world in ancient and modern times. This paper consists of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction introduces the background, research scope, and analysis of the topic, summarizes the focus of this paper. The text is divided into four parts to study the protection of buyer's expectant right of retention-of-title. First, the basic theory of ownership retention buyer's right of expectation. Its concept is defined as the legal status of the buyer other than the claim transfer request and the obligation to pay the value arising from the reservation of the contract of sale and purchase, that is, the legal status of the buyer of the retention of title which is specially protected by law. The difference between expectation right and vested right, expectation right and vested right are the vertical classification of civil law rights, the system is located in the classification of personal property and the right of defense. The establishment condition of the vested right is complete, the degree of certainty is high, and the right of expectation is a kind of "expectation" which should be protected. The right of expectation has the attribute of "preparation". Compared with the right of formation, they have different ways of obtaining rights. The right of formation obviously has the attribute of single wear and tear, the right of formation of the same content can not be repeated, and the right of expectation is a right that gradually evolves into a complete right. The nature of the buyer's expectant right of retention of title is a special right with the property of both real right and creditor's right. Second, pay attention to the difference between the retention of ownership and the relevant contract system. Compared with the conditional trading system, there is no essential difference between the retention of ownership and the conditional sale, the core of which is that the buyer acquires possession of the subject matter in the contract of sale, while the ownership is reserved by the seller before the payment of the price. Retention of title system is basically consistent with conditional trading system, and its scope of application has great similarity. The characteristics of retention of title and conditional trading are also extremely similar. The system of reservation of title and conditional purchase and sale is not obviously different in nature because of the difference of its "growing up" environment and the difference of its legal system. The act of conditional trading is completely different from the system of retention of title and conditional trading. When a dispute arises in the contract of retention of ownership, if the parties do not attach conditions to the validity of the contract, only the transfer of title to the subject matter is subject to conditions, the provisions of Article 45 of contract Law are obviously inappropriate, and the scope of application is also quite different. Thirdly, the content of the protection of the buyer's right of expectation is extremely rich. The right of expectation is a kind of right which is protected by law and has a unique legal status, and has independent function of right, such as the disposition of the right of expectation, the acquisition of the right in good faith, the establishment of the security right on the basis of it, and so on. In addition, it certainly has transferability. The difference between the transfer of expectation right and the theory of pear cutting is also an important part of the transfer of expectation right. The relationship between bona fide acquisition and bona fide acquisition is mainly divided into three kinds of case studies. The former two kinds of bona fide acquisition can be established, but in the absence of the right of expectation, bona fide acquisition cannot be established. On the security right, we can add mortgage, chattel pledge and lien over expectation right. Finally, the protection of buyer's right of expectation should be solved by legislation and judicature. In legislation, the contract law needs to define the reservation of ownership, and should protect the right of expectation as an independent right. In other legislation, we can learn from the German Civil Code and the stipulation of the conditional legal act in Taiwan civil law, and so on. Judicially, the right to take back should be restricted in the interpretation of contract of purchase and sale in our country, and the foreclosure is the advantageous way to protect the buyer's right of expectation. The conclusion part makes a brief summary of the main points of the paper.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 郭錫昆;所有權(quán)保留式分期付款買(mǎi)賣(mài)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律克服[J];貴州警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

2 郭錫昆,黃維;所有權(quán)保留式分期付款買(mǎi)賣(mài)若干風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的法律克服[J];行政論壇;2002年02期

3 王美瓊;論所有權(quán)保留之延伸[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

4 王建源;加工條款訂入所有權(quán)保留合同的法律問(wèn)題探討[J];法學(xué)雜志;2005年01期

5 劉曉霞,唐麗英;所有權(quán)保留在我國(guó)的立法現(xiàn)狀與完善[J];甘肅理論學(xué)刊;2005年02期

6 楊戩;;所有權(quán)保留性質(zhì)二元論[J];金華職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年05期

7 王瑩;邱鳳普;;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年02期

8 汪瀅;;所有權(quán)保留法律性質(zhì)研究[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究導(dǎo)刊;2009年14期

9 董新良;;所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)諸問(wèn)題探究[J];經(jīng)營(yíng)管理者;2010年23期

10 蘇鑭浠;;淺析所有權(quán)保留的性質(zhì)及效力[J];法制與社會(huì);2013年32期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 胡勇軍;宋蘇蘭;;淺論所有權(quán)保留制度[A];中國(guó)合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

2 周艷;;所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)中的權(quán)利沖突[A];第三屆中國(guó)律師論壇論文集（實(shí)務(wù)卷）[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 黃磊;所有權(quán)保留制度的存在合理性[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2005年

2 何 志;所有權(quán)保留的對(duì)抗效力[N];人民法院報(bào);2003年

3 黃磊;分期付款買(mǎi)賣(mài)中的所有權(quán)保留[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

4 黑龍江大學(xué) 陳文;所有權(quán)保留概念解讀[N];光明日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

5 對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué) 劉煥志　劉劍;可運(yùn)用所有權(quán)保留方式和債權(quán)擔(dān)保方式[N];國(guó)際商報(bào);2003年

6 常州市中級(jí)法院 黃磊;淺議分期付款買(mǎi)賣(mài)中的所有權(quán)保留[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2011年

7 河南省南陽(yáng)市中級(jí)人民法院　何 志;所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)的適用與完善[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

8 楊秋霞;所有權(quán)保留買(mǎi)賣(mài)的成立要件[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

9 江西省高安市人民法院 王永東;保留所有權(quán)買(mǎi)賣(mài)的貨物能否排除法院的查封[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

10 趙明;所有權(quán)保留之財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)金的歸屬[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 劉家安;買(mǎi)賣(mài)的法律結(jié)構(gòu)[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2001年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 蔡燕芳;國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中的所有權(quán)保留問(wèn)題研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2008年

2 嚴(yán)蓓佳;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

3 馬榮麗;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2006年

4 焦長(zhǎng)寶;所有權(quán)保留若干問(wèn)題初探[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2006年

5 李磊;所有權(quán)保留制度若干法律問(wèn)題比較研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2007年

6 何倩;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2011年

7 艾買(mǎi)提·依不拉音;所有權(quán)保留制度研究[D];新疆師范大學(xué);2011年

8 姚振華;所有權(quán)保留性質(zhì)問(wèn)題研究[D];揚(yáng)州大學(xué);2012年

9 吳彬;論國(guó)際貨物貿(mào)易所有權(quán)移轉(zhuǎn)[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2013年

10 王曉翔;所有權(quán)保留制度中出賣(mài)人的法律地位[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號(hào)：2254598