【摘要】：以物抵債協(xié)議,顧名思義就是債務(wù)人與債權(quán)人約定,以債務(wù)人或第三人的財(cái)產(chǎn)折價(jià)歸債權(quán)人所有從而消滅債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系的協(xié)議。在我國(guó),關(guān)于以物抵債協(xié)議的法律效力問題一直存在較大爭(zhēng)議,因法律對(duì)此沒有明確規(guī)定,導(dǎo)致司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)以物抵債協(xié)議之處處理許多困惑,國(guó)內(nèi)鮮有關(guān)于以物抵債協(xié)議的性質(zhì)的專業(yè)性、深度性和創(chuàng)新性的著作、文章,本人的根本目的在于理清。司法實(shí)踐中所遇不同簽訂時(shí)間以物抵債協(xié)議效力問題,從而解決法律實(shí)務(wù)中難以解決的債務(wù)糾紛問題。本文從兩則案例對(duì)比出發(fā),將以物抵債協(xié)議效力問題按訂立時(shí)間點(diǎn)的不同,分為三部分進(jìn)行分別論述。債務(wù)履行期界滿之前,雙方簽訂的以物抵債協(xié)議,其性質(zhì)和表現(xiàn)雖有別于流質(zhì)合同和讓與擔(dān)保,但該時(shí)間段訂立的以物抵債協(xié)議亦應(yīng)與流質(zhì)合同和讓與擔(dān)保的效力一樣歸于無效。此時(shí),債權(quán)人只可以憑借原債務(wù)合同主張其原債權(quán)。債務(wù)履行期限屆滿之后,債權(quán)人與債務(wù)人之間訂立的以物抵債協(xié)議有效,若當(dāng)事人另有約定原債務(wù)合同無效,此時(shí)以物抵債協(xié)議的性質(zhì)當(dāng)屬債的更改,債權(quán)人只能依據(jù)以物抵債協(xié)議主張權(quán)利;若當(dāng)事人之間無關(guān)于原債務(wù)合同效力的約定,則以物抵債協(xié)議的性質(zhì)當(dāng)屬新債清償,該以物抵債協(xié)議與原債務(wù)合同并存,且同時(shí)有效,債權(quán)人可以憑借以物抵債協(xié)議主張權(quán)利,亦可以以原債務(wù)合同為依據(jù)主張權(quán)利,具有選擇性。以物抵債協(xié)議履行完畢后構(gòu)成代物清償,此時(shí)應(yīng)認(rèn)定該協(xié)議的效力,若債權(quán)人發(fā)現(xiàn)標(biāo)的物發(fā)生瑕疵(標(biāo)的物瑕疵問題分為三種,即標(biāo)的物本身有使用瑕疵;標(biāo)的物有權(quán)利上的瑕疵;債務(wù)人遲延履行給債權(quán)人造成損失),此時(shí)可按正常的物的買賣合同上買受人的權(quán)責(zé)來主張權(quán)利。
[Abstract]:As the name implies, the agreement between the debtor and the creditor is that the property of the debtor or the third party can be reduced to the creditor's property to destroy the relationship between the creditor and the creditor. In our country, there has always been a great dispute about the legal effect of the agreement on recompense in rem, because there is no clear stipulation on it in the law, which leads to a lot of confusion in the judicial practice of dealing with the agreement of recompense in rem. There are few professional, deep and innovative works on the nature of the agreement of recompense in China, the basic purpose of this article is to clarify. In judicial practice, the problem of the validity of the agreement of paying debts in rem at different time is met, thus solving the problem of debt dispute which is difficult to solve in the practice of law. Based on the comparison of two cases, this paper discusses the validity of the agreement in rem into three parts according to the different time points. Prior to the expiration of the period of performance of the debt, the nature and performance of the agreement signed between the two parties in rem for debt is different from that of the liquid contract and the assignment guarantee, However, the agreement concluded in rem shall be null and void as the liquid contract and assignment guarantee. At this point, the creditor can only rely on the original debt contract claims its original creditor's rights. After the expiration of the time limit for performance of the debt, the agreement concluded between the creditor and the debtor in rem shall be valid. If the original debt contract is void as otherwise agreed by the parties, the nature of the agreement shall be regarded as a change of the debt, The creditor can only claim his rights on the basis of the agreement on rem; if there is no agreement between the parties on the validity of the original debt contract, the nature of the agreement shall be a new debt settlement, and the agreement on rem shall coexist with the original debt contract and shall be valid at the same time, Creditors can claim their rights on the basis of the agreement on rem or on the basis of the original debt contract. If the creditor discovers that the subject matter is defective (there are three kinds of defects in the subject matter, that is, the subject matter itself has the use defect; The subject matter has a defect in rights; the debtor's delay in performance causes a loss to the creditor), at which time the right may be claimed in accordance with the buyer's right and responsibility in the normal contract of sale and purchase of the thing.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：沈陽師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李光祿;楊位龍;;代物清償?shù)男再|(zhì)及效力探析[J];山東科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年03期

2 嚴(yán)之;;代物清償法律問題研究[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2015年01期

3 其木提;;代物清償協(xié)議的效力——最高人民法院(2011)民提字第210號(hào)民事判決評(píng)釋[J];交大法學(xué);2013年03期

4 翟云嶺;于靖文;;代物清償理論剖析[J];大連海事大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2012年01期

5 厲文清;;禁止流質(zhì)契約仍有必要[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年01期

6 高治;;代物清償預(yù)約研究——兼論流擔(dān)保制度的立法選擇[J];法律適用;2008年08期

7 王洪;;要物合同的存與廢——兼論我國(guó)《民法典》的立法抉擇[J];上海師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年04期

8 韓世遠(yuǎn);;出賣人的物的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任與我國(guó)合同法[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2007年03期

9 吳延學(xué);;多重視角下的流擔(dān)保條款:反思與重構(gòu)[J];重慶社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年02期

10 崔軍;;代物清償?shù)幕疽?guī)則及實(shí)務(wù)應(yīng)用[J];法律適用;2006年07期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 何惠平;論以物抵債調(diào)解協(xié)議的法律效力[D];西南政法大學(xué);2012年

2 徐振剛;建設(shè)工程承包人優(yōu)先受償制度若干問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

3 劉靖靖;論清償?shù)臉?gòu)成[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：2132805