【摘要】：隨著房?jī)r(jià)的不斷攀升,二手房買賣已經(jīng)成為社會(huì)中非常普遍的交易現(xiàn)象。而伴隨著相關(guān)交易量的激增,夫妻一方私賣共有房屋的案例屢見不鮮。然而對(duì)于擅自處分共有物的合同效力如何,我國(guó)不同的法律條文間卻產(chǎn)生了明顯的沖突,這種法條間的沖突直接導(dǎo)致了實(shí)務(wù)司法中五花八門的判決結(jié)果一---有認(rèn)為其合同無(wú)效的,有認(rèn)為其效力待定的,只有少數(shù)判決認(rèn)為其合同有效。為了解決司法實(shí)務(wù)中的這一困點(diǎn),合理的保護(hù)合同當(dāng)事人及財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)利人的切身利益,作者將對(duì)擅自處分共有物的合同效力這一問題展開探析。文章中對(duì)處分、共有等概念進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的梳理,對(duì)合同效力的價(jià)值進(jìn)行了客觀的分析;對(duì)司法實(shí)務(wù)中的相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行了集合,從而對(duì)比分析不同案例爭(zhēng)議的原因所在一法條邏輯不清、法律位階不同、概念區(qū)分不明等等;針對(duì)這些原因,作者進(jìn)行了邏輯梳理、價(jià)值對(duì)比和比較法研究,并在最后總結(jié)說(shuō)明了對(duì)此問題的解決辦法,即立法模式上引入物權(quán)行為有因化理論,在司法中完善對(duì)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》(下稱《買賣合同解釋》)相關(guān)法律規(guī)定的適用。本文分為導(dǎo)言、第一章、第二章、第三章和結(jié)語(yǔ),共計(jì)五個(gè)部分。導(dǎo)言部分由一個(gè)案例引出本文所要探析的問題------擅自處分共有物的合同效力到底如何,為何一線法院判決此類案例的結(jié)果五花八門、莫衷一是。為何不同法條之間的規(guī)定出現(xiàn)了如此大的懸殊,應(yīng)該如何化解這個(gè)矛盾的局面。第一章對(duì)擅自處分共有物的之合同效力所涉及到的基本概念進(jìn)行梳理。探析了共有的形式:按份共有、共同共有及非典型共有,對(duì)與共有相類似的概念進(jìn)行區(qū)分;探析了合同的成立與生效的聯(lián)系和區(qū)別從而更好的理解二者的關(guān)系,并從正義、效率、自由三個(gè)維度對(duì)合同效力的價(jià)值深度理解;探析了擅自處分共有物與無(wú)權(quán)處分的關(guān)系及此類情形下合同的效力。第二章引入了司法實(shí)務(wù)中的關(guān)于擅自處分共有物合同效力糾紛的相關(guān)案例,對(duì)案例之間的判決爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)行了深入的分析并得出其癥結(jié)所在------法條邏輯的悖論、效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)范與管理性強(qiáng)制規(guī)范的混淆,并對(duì)該癥結(jié)進(jìn)行了理論溯源對(duì)不同的物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式進(jìn)行了細(xì)致的分析,比較了判例法系國(guó)家和國(guó)際示范法對(duì)此類問題的規(guī)定。得出初步結(jié)論,基于法律體系協(xié)調(diào)的要求、基于交易效率的要求、基于交易安全的要求,擅自處分共有物的合同應(yīng)為有效。第三章對(duì)如何完善擅自處分共有物之合同效力提出了建議,在立法上引入物權(quán)行為有因化的物權(quán)變動(dòng)模式并分析了引入該模式的可行性,在司法上要加強(qiáng)各級(jí)法院對(duì)《買賣合同解釋》第3條的相關(guān)理解和適用同時(shí)注意區(qū)分效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)范和管理性強(qiáng)制規(guī)范。結(jié)語(yǔ)部分對(duì)本文進(jìn)行了最后的簡(jiǎn)單總結(jié),限于能力和篇幅,本文對(duì)擅自處分共有物之合同效力問題局限在了實(shí)務(wù)中較為常見的買賣交易,而對(duì)于抵押、質(zhì)押、留置的擔(dān)保物權(quán)效力以及贈(zèng)與等處分行為未能展開更多的探析,希望在日后的學(xué)習(xí)生活中對(duì)該問題能夠進(jìn)行更加全面而細(xì)致的論述。
[Abstract]:With the rising of house prices, the sale of second-hand house has become a very common phenomenon in the society. With the proliferation of related trading volume, the case of the couple's private sales of the common house is common. However, with regard to the validity of the contract for the unauthorized disposal of the common objects, there is a clear conflict between the different legal provisions in our country, and the conflict between the legal provisions directly leads to a wide variety of judgment results in the substantive justice--with the view that the contract is invalid, and it is considered that the effect is to be determined. Only a few of them considered that their contracts were valid. In order to solve this difficulty in the judicial practice, it is reasonable to protect the personal interests of the parties and property right of the contract. The article makes a detailed analysis of the concept of disposition and consensus, and makes an objective analysis of the value of the effectiveness of the contract, and sets up the relevant cases in the judicial practice, so as to compare and analyze the reasons of the different case disputes, and the legal order is different. In view of these reasons, the author has studied the logic, value contrast and comparative law, and finally concluded the solution to this problem, that is, the introduction of the property right in the legislative mode is the result of the theory of law, In the administration of justice, the application of the relevant laws of the People's Court of the People's Court of the People's Court on the application of the applicable law of the dispute over the trial and sales contract is improved (hereinafter referred to as the "interpretation of the sales contract"). This article is divided into the introduction, the first chapter, the second chapter, the third chapter and the epilogue, a total of five parts. The introduction is from one case to the question to be analyzed in this paper--how to dispose of the contract effectiveness of a common object without authorization, and why the first-line court decides that the outcome of such cases is different and the compromise is. What is the difference between the provisions of the different methods is how to resolve this contradiction. The first chapter is to sort out the basic concepts involved in the contract effectiveness of the unauthorized disposal of the shares. In this paper, the common forms of common, common and non-typical are analyzed, the concept of similar to that of common is divided, the relation and difference between the establishment and the effective of the contract are analyzed, the relationship between the two is better understood, and the justice and the efficiency are obtained. The three dimensions of freedom have a deep understanding of the value of the effectiveness of the contract, and probes into the relationship between the unauthorized disposal of the shares and the right to dispose of the contract and the effect of the contract under such circumstances. In the second chapter, the author introduced the relevant cases of the dispute of the contract effectiveness of the common object without authorization in the judicial practice, and made an in-depth analysis of the dispute between the cases and found its crux--the paradox of the legal bar logic, the force of validity and the confusion of the mandatory specification of the administrative force, In this paper, the author makes a detailed analysis of the change pattern of the real right, and compares the case-based national and international model law to the problem. The preliminary conclusions are drawn, and based on the requirements of the coordination of the legal system, the contract of disposing the shares without authorization shall be valid based on the requirements of the transaction efficiency and the requirements of the transaction security. In the third chapter, the author makes a suggestion on how to perfect the contract effect of the unauthorized disposal of the object, introduce the change pattern of the real right in the legislation, and analyze the feasibility of the introduction of the model. In the administration of justice, it is necessary to strengthen the relevant understanding and application of the courts at all levels to the interpretation of the Sales and Sales Contract> Article 3, and to pay attention to the distinction between the mandatory and the administrative rules. The conclusion of the concluding remarks is the last simple summary, which is limited to the ability and length, and the limitation of the contract validity of the unauthorized disposal of the common objects in the practice is the more common business transaction, and for the mortgage and the pledge, The effect of the remaining security right and the disposition of the grant have not expanded more and more, and it is hoped that the problem can be more fully and more detailed in the future study life.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中央民族大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 葉林;;一本有分量的學(xué)術(shù)專著——?jiǎng)①F祥所著《合同效力研究》[J];法律適用;2012年08期

2 舒婧;;合同效力的分類[J];商業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì);2013年01期

3 藍(lán)承烈;論合同效力的擴(kuò)張[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2000年06期

4 田蘊(yùn)穎;淺析合同效力的立法完善[J];遼寧廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2000年04期

5 李戈;合同效力三題[J];中共山西省委黨校學(xué)報(bào);2002年06期

6 黃金橋;論合同效力[J];律師世界;2003年04期

7 李卓梅;論合同效力的確認(rèn)[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2004年04期

8 趙漣漪;宋振玲;;淺析合同效力的根源[J];沈陽(yáng)干部學(xué)刊;2005年06期

9 程國(guó)彬;;合同效力內(nèi)涵與效力基礎(chǔ)[J];鞍山科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2006年02期

10 許英;;外貿(mào)管制對(duì)合同效力影響的理論問題探析[J];肇慶學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2006年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前8條

1 張穎;葉金花;;論要式欠缺對(duì)合同效力的影響[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

2 趙宇濤;;淺談對(duì)合同效力的認(rèn)定[A];西安市工商局碑林分局、西安市碑林區(qū)工商學(xué)會(huì)2004年度理論研討會(huì)優(yōu)秀論文集[C];2004年

3 薛濟(jì)民;;合同法與勞動(dòng)法關(guān)于合同效力規(guī)定的比較[A];處理勞動(dòng)爭(zhēng)議律師網(wǎng)絡(luò)研討會(huì)論文集[C];2002年

4 趙凡;;代簽名的保險(xiǎn)合同效力的認(rèn)定[A];浙江省2011年保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2011年

5 姚宗國(guó);呂群蓉;;要式欠缺合同效力之補(bǔ)救探析[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

6 史琪敏;周勝;;淺析“假按揭”中的合同效力[A];中國(guó)合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

7 張慶華;;關(guān)于合同效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)定的識(shí)別[A];中國(guó)合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

8 劉劍凌;;半費(fèi)之訟之解[A];第十四屆全國(guó)法律邏輯學(xué)術(shù)討論會(huì)論文集[C];2006年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 劉建航　王峰;聯(lián)合探礦或合作勘查合同效力的認(rèn)定[N];中國(guó)礦業(yè)報(bào);2013年

2 楊奇;擅自出租他人房屋的合同效力[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2012年

3 本報(bào)記者 張維;24年儲(chǔ)蓄合同效力不容置疑[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

4 馮金嚴(yán);合同詐騙中合同效力的認(rèn)定[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

5 趙建賓;恢復(fù)合同效力兩天后 被保險(xiǎn)人被確診肝癌[N];中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)報(bào);2004年

6 馮占新 王玉梅 李國(guó)生;確認(rèn)合同效力需符合實(shí)際[N];人民法院報(bào);2001年

7 記者 王斗斗　于吶洋;有合同效力的調(diào)解協(xié)議范圍擴(kuò)大[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

8 本報(bào)通訊員 陸思瀅;發(fā)包山地起糾紛 合同效力惹爭(zhēng)議[N];廣西法治日?qǐng)?bào);2014年

9 清華大學(xué)法學(xué)院教授 博士生導(dǎo)師 韓世遠(yuǎn);正確運(yùn)用裁判方法 依法認(rèn)定合同效力[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

10 通訊員 鄭淑梅 張慧芳;典當(dāng)合同效力的認(rèn)定與處理[N];浙江法制報(bào);2014年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 肖斌;論公司治理結(jié)構(gòu)對(duì)合同效力的影響[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2015年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 檀曉娟;非法吸收公眾存款罪所涉合同效力的認(rèn)定[D];河北大學(xué);2015年

2 崔萌超;無(wú)權(quán)處分合同效力研究[D];中國(guó)青年政治學(xué)院;2014年

3 葛義偉;保證合同效力研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

4 趙婉辰;無(wú)權(quán)處分合同效力研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2015年

5 孫琳琳;無(wú)權(quán)處分合同效力研究[D];山西大學(xué);2015年

6 彭樹彬;批準(zhǔn)生效法律行為基本問題研究[D];南京大學(xué);2014年

7 屈敏;第三人欺詐脅迫合同效力研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

8 楊麗;對(duì)強(qiáng)制性規(guī)范影響合同效力問題的思考[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2014年

9 閆恒志;無(wú)權(quán)處分合同效力的實(shí)證分析[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2016年

10 謝瑤;第三人欺詐、脅迫合同效力研究[D];延邊大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：2486156