无权处分一般规则之 “ 回归”——以 《合同编通则解释》 ( 征求意见稿) 第 20 条为中心

The Return of the General Rule of Unauthorized Disposition —Centered around Article 20 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of the Chapter of Contract of China̓s Civil Code

摘要:

相较于 《民法典》 第 597 条第 1 款, 《合同编通则解释》 ( 征求意见稿) 第 20 条在重建无权处分一般规则、 确立消弭履行行为 ( 或物权变动) 效力未定状态的具体方法、 凸显权利人的自主决定等方面具有重要意义。 这两条均以 _“ 处分权_” 控制交易过程, 但不同的物权变动理论对处分权如何具体控制交易过程有不同理解。 债权形式主义是以处分权控制 _“ 事实行为_” ( 交付或登记的物权公示方法), 物权形式主义则是以处分权控制 _“ 法律行为_” ( 处分行为)。 由于前者与民法基本原理有所抵牾, 使无权处分在我国民法 ( 理论) 体系上殊难定位, 易使无权处分与无权代理疏离乃至造成价值判断失衡, 应以后一理解为优。

Abstract:

Unauthorized disposition is one of the most important core nodal issues in civil law, closely related to systems such as real right change mode, bona fide acquisition, liability of guarantee for defects of right, liability for breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, thus having extremely sensitive systemic effects. In terms of the regulation of unauthorized disposition, China_'s civil legislation and civil judicial interpretations have undergone several changes, from Article 51 of the Contract Law to Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People_'s Court on Issues Concerning the Application of Law for the Trial of Cases of Disputes over Sales Contracts, and to Article 597(1) of the Civil Code, further to Article 20 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People?s Court of the Application of the Chapter of Contract of China _'s Civil Code (Consultation Paper)(hereinafter referred to as the Interpretation of the General Principles of the Chapter of Contract) . Compared with Article 597 (1) of China_'s Civil Code Article 20 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of the Chapter of Contract is of great significance in reconstructing the general rule of unauthorized disposition, establishing specific methods to eliminate the uncertain status of the effect of performance (or real rights change) , and highlighting the independent decision of the obligee. Whether in accordance with Article 597 (1) of the Civil Code or Article 20 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of the Chapter of Contract, the right of disposition does not affect the validity of the sales contract (contract of assignment) , but it affects the performance effect of the sales contract (contract of assignment) , that is , whether the real right can be changed. This approach of designing the right of disposition as an element that affects the performance of contract of assignment is crucial. The fundamental reason is that the right of disposition has a cornerstone position in the legal order of human civilization. Both of the articles control the transaction process with the right of disposition. However, different theories on real rights change mode have different understandings of how the right of disposition specifically controls the transaction process. Different real rights change modes place the right of disposition at different stages of the transaction. Formalism of creditor?s rights controls factual behavior ( delivery or registration of real rights ) through the right of disposition, while formalism of real rights controls juridical acts (disposition behavior) through the right of disposition. There is controversy in the academic community in China over the real rights change mode established in Article 215 of the Civil Code, and accordingly, there are also differences in how to interpret Article 20 of the Interpretation of the General Principles of the Chapter of Contract. Starting from the premise of the real rights change mode of formalism of creditor_'s rights, there may be some problems when understanding unauthorized disposition, such as conflicts with the basic principles of civil law, making it difficult to locate unauthorized disposition in China?s theoretical civil law system, easily causing the separation of unauthorized disposition and unauthorized agency, and even causing an imbalance in value judgment. On the contrary, understanding Article 20 from the perspective of formalism of real rights not only better aligns with the basic principles of civil law, but also enables it to form a seamless system of undetermined juridical acts with systems such as unauthorized agency and juridical acts of persons with limited capacity. It can also avoid the imbalance of value judgments in the design of the unauthorized agency system, and thus be more integrated than understanding this article from the previous perspective.