论文部分内容阅读
2008年,“苏敏罗诉瀚海拍卖公司以253万拍卖吴冠假《池塘》画”一案原告的败诉,引起了拍卖行业内外对“不保真”惯例的热议。拍卖行的“不保真”作为一种国内行业惯例,乃至于国际通行的运作模式,为时已久;而此明显不合理的规则之下,隐含着某些法学、社会学、哲学等的考量和博弈;表现在现实层面,即是行业惯例的运行规律。本文欲从行业的惯例原理出发,解读《拍卖法》第61条关于“拍卖标的瑕疵担保声明责任”的法理;同时通过其产生渊源的分析,探讨当前中国拍卖业内存在的问题和解决机制,从而为我国拍卖行业的制度化、规范化建言献策。
In 2008, Su Minluo v. Hanhai Auction Company lost the auction of 2.53 million yuan in the auction of “Pond Painting” of Wu Guanzhu, provoking a heated debate in the auction industry about the “non-fidelity” practices both inside and outside the auction industry. The auction house’s “fidelity” as a domestic industry practice, and even the international mode of operation for a long time; and under this obviously unreasonable rules, implies some legal, sociology, Philosophy and other considerations and the game; performance in reality, that is, the law of operation of the industry practice. This article, based on the usual practice in the industry, interprets the legal principle of Article 61 of the Auction Law on the liability of the guarantee of the defects of the auction target. At the same time, it analyzes the problems existing in the Chinese auction industry and the solution mechanism , So as to institutionalize and standardize the auction industry in our country.