论文部分内容阅读
在当下国内融资租赁业务开展过程中,对作为出租人的融资租赁公司公力救济的保护力度不够是不争的事实,其中,在承租人出现不支付租金违约、出租人行使救济权利时,出租人被要求“强制二选一”便是突出的一例。“强制二选一”作为在当事人未在融资租赁合同中约定到期租赁物所有权归属情形下的争议解决遵循原则是可取的,但对于在融资租赁合同中有明确救济并选约定的争议案也适用“强制二选一”原则显然不妥,其必然会引发质疑,因此,融资租赁业务中的加速到期和收回租赁物不应相互排斥,在尊重当事人意思自治的前提下,两者可以成为互为补充的救济手段。
In the current process of domestic financial leasing business, it is an indisputable fact that the financial leasing company as the lessor does not have sufficient protection of public remedies. In the event that the lessee fails to pay the rent and the lessor exercises the right of relief, the lessor Being asked to “force a second choice” is a prominent example. “Mandatory alternative” as the principle of dispute resolution in case the parties did not stipulate the ownership of the lease due in the finance lease contract is desirable, but for the clear relief and optional agreement in the financial lease contract The case also applies “compulsory two choose a ” principle is apparently wrong, it will inevitably lead to questioning, therefore, the accelerated expiration of financial leasing business and the recovery of leased material should not be mutually exclusive, on the premise of respecting the party autonomy of meaning, Both can be complementary remedies.