论文部分内容阅读
1990年第3期《人民司法》“案例研究”专栏刊登了晓吴同志的《这三份抵押协议应如何认定?》一文(以下简称晓文),晓文对被告某县电器厂与第三人某县工商银行签订的两份抵押协议和与原告某地区五金交电化工公司签订的抵押协议的效力问题作了仔细的分析,分别作了不同的认定。笔者赞同晓文对第一份抵押协议(与第三人签订)的认定,但其对后两份抵押协议效力的认定,笔者不敢苟同。现略陈拙见与晓吴同志商榷。
1990, No. 3, “People's Court,” “Case Study” column published Comrade Xiao Wu, “These three mortgage agreements should be how?” (Hereinafter referred to Xiaowen), Xiaowen defendant a county electrical plant and the third People's Bank of China Industrial and Commercial Bank signed two mortgage agreements and the plaintiffs in a region of Wujinjiaodian Chemical Company signed a pledge of the effectiveness of the agreement made a careful analysis, respectively, made a different determination. I agree Xiaowen first mortgage agreement (signed with a third party) that, but its confirmation of the effectiveness of the latter two mortgage agreements, I do not agree. Now a little clumsy see Comrade Xiao Wu.