| 无权处分:解释方案的比较与选择 | |
| 柯勇敏 ; KE Yong-min | |
| 2016-03-30 ; 2016-03-30 | |
| 关键词 | 无权处分合同 主观解释论 客观解释论 善意取得 处分权能 D923.6 |
| 其他题名 | Unauthorized Disposal: Comparison and Choice of Interpretative Proposals |
| 中文摘要 | 法释[2012]8号第3条将无权处分问题推向了一个高峰,论者蜂起,在不同层面上形成了争议。迄今为止的学术争议可以概括为三种对无权处分合同的解释方案之间的选择问题。其中有两种坚持主观解释论的立场,另有一种坚持客观解释论的立场。通过未来物买卖、与现行法体系的衔接以及利益平衡的角度,认可善意取得下无权处分合同有效的主观解释论立场既能在法源正统性上有其依据,也能保证逻辑上的自洽和结果的公正合理,应当对相关的无权处分合同的规范群作此解释。; Article 3 of the No. 8 judicial interpretation of 2012 pushed the discussion about unauthorized disposal to a summit,giving rise to various opinions. There are different disputes in different levels. The academic controversies hitherto can be summarized to a choice issue among three interpretative proposals of unauthorized disposal contracts. Two of them insist on the standpoint of subjective interpretation and one is supporting objective interpretation. From some angles,such as transactions of the future,linking up to the present legal system and interests balance,we may accept that unauthorized disposal contracts are valid in the occasion of bona fide acquisition,for it is based on the legitimacy of source and can guarantee the logical self-consistent and fair consequences. Articles group on unauthorized disposal contracts should be interpreted in this way. |
| 语种 | 中文 ; 中文 |
| 内容类型 | 期刊论文 |
| 源URL | [http://ir.lib.tsinghua.edu.cn/ir/item.do?handle=123456789/143068]  |
| 专题 | 清华大学 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | 柯勇敏,KE Yong-min. 无权处分:解释方案的比较与选择[J],2016, 2016. |
| APA | 柯勇敏,&KE Yong-min.(2016).无权处分:解释方案的比较与选择.. |
| MLA | 柯勇敏,et al."无权处分:解释方案的比较与选择".(2016). |
| 个性服务 |
| 查看访问统计 |
| 相关权益政策 |
| 暂无数据 |
| 收藏/分享 |
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
修改评论