论文部分内容阅读
我国的《票据法》、《担保法》和《物权法》对质押背书在票据设质中的必要性做出了截然不同的规定。但两个看似冲突法律文件在内在逻辑上具有统一性,其根本的原因在于票据设质行为的二元性,从而导致了票据设质立法的二元性。票据设质当事人既可以按照《票据法》进行票据质押,也可以按照普通民事法律进行票据权利质押。不同的法律规则的适用,将导致票据设质行为不同效力的产生。
China’s “Notes Law”, “Security Law” and “Property Law” made entirely different requirements for the pledge endorsement in the quality of the notes. However, the two seemingly conflicting legal documents have the inherent logic of unity. The fundamental reason lies in the dual nature of the bill quality-setting behavior, which leads to the duality of bill quality-setting legislation. The parties that set the quality of the bills may either pledge the bills according to the “Notes Law” or pledge the rights of bills according to ordinary civil law. The application of different legal rules will result in different qualities of the bill’s qualifying behavior.