论文部分内容阅读
最高人民法院颁布的《买卖合同司法解释》第3条对以处分权缺失为由请求判定合同无效的主张予以否定,从而间接规定无权处分的效力不受处分权缺失的影响。它与《合同法》第51条效力待定之规定互相矛盾,系《合同法》第132条之反面解释,同时又有利于《合同法》第150条之权利瑕疵担保责任条款的落实。间接规定无权处分效力不受处分权缺失的影响,其一是为了避免和法律产生直接冲突,其二是为了提倡所有权正义,但其根本原因是因为我国物权行为概念的缺失。因此,要改变合同法上无权处分的混乱局面,应当对无权处分行为进行重新界定,并对现行规定予以修改,创设无权处分效力的共同规则。
Article 3 of Judicial Interpretation of Sales and Purchase promulgated by the Supreme People’s Court rejects the claim that the contract is invalid on the ground of lacking of the right to dispose of the right, thus indirectly stipulating that the effect of the right to no punishment is not affected by the absence of the right to dispose of the right. It contradicts the stipulation of Article 51 of the Contract Law, which is the opposite interpretation of Article 132 of the Contract Law and at the same time facilitates the implementation of the clauses of warranty guarantee of the right of Article 150 of the Contract Law. The indirect regulation of the effect of the non-punishment of sanctions is not affected by the lack of sanction. One is to avoid direct conflicts with the law and the other is to promote the justice of ownership. However, the fundamental reason is that the concept of real rights in our country is lacking. Therefore, in order to change the chaotic situation in the contract law that has no right to be punished, we should redefine the non-punitive act and amend the current law to create common rules that have no power to punish.