金融理财保底条款效力之认定  

Affirming the Validity of Floor-return Clauses in Financial Planning

作　　者：王伟[1] 

机构地区：[1]黑龙江大学法学院,哈尔滨150080

出　　处：《学术交流》2013年第4期63-66,共4页Academic Exchange

基　　金：2010年度国家社科基金一般项目"资本市场统合趋势下中国金融服务法研究"(10BFX066)的阶段性成果;黑龙江大学研究生创新科研项目资金资助(YJSCX2012-303HLJ)

摘　　要：金融理财保底条款是指依据金融商品交易的约定,金融服务者保证在指定的时间返还金融消费者投入的本金或本金及收益。保底条款是风险与收益的分配,直接关涉双方当事人的利益,对金融商品交易具有重要意义。然而,保底条款的效力却存在理论争议,而我国现行立法则依据金融服务者不同的身份确立不同的效力,存在允许保底、禁止保底与附条件允许保底三种立法态度。对于金融商品交易的保底条款应当进行功能性监管,确立统一的效力。金融资本市场的健康发展、民法的基本原理以及域外立法经验,都要求认定保底条款为无效条款。Floor-return clause of financial planning stipulates that imanclal service provlaers snoula return me principal and profit that consumer invested within specified terms according to their contract. It determines the distribution between risk and income, concerning the benefits of both parties, and has great meanings for financial product exchanges. However, its effect triggered disputes in theory. In current legislation, different i- dentities of financial service provider possess their own validity, involving three attitudes towards legislation, permission, prohibit, added-conditioned permission. supervised functionally to ensure its unified validity. Therefore, clause on promised lowest return should be In addition, from the foreign experiences about soundly- developed capital market, basic principle of civil law and their legislation, we ought to take it as invalid clause.

关 键 词：保底条款 效力 无效 

分 类 号：D912.28[政治法律—民商法学]