TRA CỨU
Các bộ sưu tập
Skip Navigation Links.
Thư mục - Vốn tư liệu
以物抵债契约研究 =

以物抵债契约研究 = : Study on the Contract of Paying-a-debt-in-kind.

 SHI, Jian-hui.
 2014
 36-43 p. 南京大学 中文 ISSN: 10077278
代物清偿.以物抵债.债之更改.新债清偿.流质契约.让与担保.
Tác giả CN SHI, Jian-hui.
Nhan đề 以物抵债契约研究 = Study on the Contract of Paying-a-debt-in-kind. /SHI Jian-hui.
Thông tin xuất bản 2014
Mô tả vật lý 36-43 p.
Tùng thư 南京大学
Tóm tắt Cases like paying-a-debt-in-kind are common in judicial practice,and yet there is neither a concept nor any set pattern of such a kind in the civil law,resulting in many difficulties in judicial decisions.In some courts,case of such a sort is relegated to false action,or its validity is merely rejected as "fluidity contract" in some others.Since the terms in a paying-a-debt-in-kind contract are agreed upon by the parties concerned,they should be approached to as unnamed contract in principle,and categorized in accordance to situations,so that the terms may match up with the existing civil law concepts as much as possible.Paying-a-debt-in-kind contract is absolutely not a loophole in law,and the court should apply it through such ways as quasi-application and analogy suitability,to bring into being rules of jurisprudent significance.We should bear in mind the principle of contract freedom and autonomy when judging the effect of paying-a-debt-inkind contract.Under such principles as the true intentions are made clear by the parties involved and everything serves its purpose well,the validity of such a contract should be recognized rather than be directly put into the framework of the contract of liquid guarantee and transferring guarantee.Practice contract theory is one interpretation of paying-a-debt-in-kind contract,but not its nature.Being abused by false action though,paying-a-debt-in-kind contract has nothing to do with false action.
Tóm tắt 以物抵债在司法实务中常见,我国民法上没有此概念及相应的制度体系,故司法判决多有疑虑,现今竟成了疑难案例。有的法院几乎将其视为虚假诉讼之同义词,有的法院则以"流质契约"直接否定其效力。以物抵债系当事人在契约中约定的条款,故应以无名合同原理研究之,区分不同情形进行归类,尽量与现有民法概念和制度进行匹配。以物抵债契约不属于法律漏洞,法院应通过准用、类推适用等方法解释适用,形成比较有法理性的裁判规则。以物抵债契约的效力判断,应从合同自由及意思自治原则出发,正确进行概念界定和辨析,在正确进行意思表示解释及物尽其用原则下,应肯定其意义和效力,而不是直接适用流质契约及让与担保之规则。以物抵债契约的实践合同说只是一种解释的角度,而非实践合同的效力本质。以物抵债契约虽容易被虚假诉讼利用,但两者本身并无关联。
Từ khóa tự do 代物清偿.
Từ khóa tự do 以物抵债.
Từ khóa tự do 债之更改.
Từ khóa tự do 新债清偿.
Từ khóa tự do 流质契约.
Từ khóa tự do 让与担保.
Nguồn trích Journal of Nanjing University: Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences- 2014, Vol. 51, No. 6.
Nguồn trích 南京大学学报 : 哲学社会科学- 2014, 第一卷
MARC
Hiển thị đầy đủ trường & trường con
TagGiá trị
00000000nab a2200000 a 4500
00134518
0022
00444953
008150626s2014 ch| a 000 0 chi d
0091 0
022[ ] |a 10077278
035[ ] |a 1456385776
039[ ] |a 20241130174925 |b idtocn |c |d |y 20150626094929 |z svtt
041[0 ] |a chi
044[ ] |a ch
100[0 ] |a SHI, Jian-hui.
245[1 0] |a 以物抵债契约研究 = |b Study on the Contract of Paying-a-debt-in-kind. / |c SHI Jian-hui.
260[ ] |c 2014
300[ ] |a 36-43 p.
362[0 ] |a Vol. 51, No. 6 (2014)
490[0 ] |a 南京大学
520[ ] |a Cases like paying-a-debt-in-kind are common in judicial practice,and yet there is neither a concept nor any set pattern of such a kind in the civil law,resulting in many difficulties in judicial decisions.In some courts,case of such a sort is relegated to false action,or its validity is merely rejected as "fluidity contract" in some others.Since the terms in a paying-a-debt-in-kind contract are agreed upon by the parties concerned,they should be approached to as unnamed contract in principle,and categorized in accordance to situations,so that the terms may match up with the existing civil law concepts as much as possible.Paying-a-debt-in-kind contract is absolutely not a loophole in law,and the court should apply it through such ways as quasi-application and analogy suitability,to bring into being rules of jurisprudent significance.We should bear in mind the principle of contract freedom and autonomy when judging the effect of paying-a-debt-inkind contract.Under such principles as the true intentions are made clear by the parties involved and everything serves its purpose well,the validity of such a contract should be recognized rather than be directly put into the framework of the contract of liquid guarantee and transferring guarantee.Practice contract theory is one interpretation of paying-a-debt-in-kind contract,but not its nature.Being abused by false action though,paying-a-debt-in-kind contract has nothing to do with false action.
520[ ] |a 以物抵债在司法实务中常见,我国民法上没有此概念及相应的制度体系,故司法判决多有疑虑,现今竟成了疑难案例。有的法院几乎将其视为虚假诉讼之同义词,有的法院则以"流质契约"直接否定其效力。以物抵债系当事人在契约中约定的条款,故应以无名合同原理研究之,区分不同情形进行归类,尽量与现有民法概念和制度进行匹配。以物抵债契约不属于法律漏洞,法院应通过准用、类推适用等方法解释适用,形成比较有法理性的裁判规则。以物抵债契约的效力判断,应从合同自由及意思自治原则出发,正确进行概念界定和辨析,在正确进行意思表示解释及物尽其用原则下,应肯定其意义和效力,而不是直接适用流质契约及让与担保之规则。以物抵债契约的实践合同说只是一种解释的角度,而非实践合同的效力本质。以物抵债契约虽容易被虚假诉讼利用,但两者本身并无关联。
653[0 ] |a 代物清偿.
653[0 ] |a 以物抵债.
653[0 ] |a 债之更改.
653[0 ] |a 新债清偿.
653[0 ] |a 流质契约.
653[0 ] |a 让与担保.
773[ ] |t Journal of Nanjing University: Philosophy, Humanities and Social Sciences |g 2014, Vol. 51, No. 6.
773[ ] |t 南京大学学报 : 哲学社会科学 |g 2014, 第一卷
890[ ] |a 0 |b 0 |c 0 |d 0