无权处分的规制形式——以《合同法》第51条的解释为中心  

Form of Rule of Punishment Incapacity

作　　者：张家勇[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南民族学院法学系,四川成都610041

出　　处：《西南民族学院学报（哲学社会科学版）》2002年第10期17-24,共8页Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

摘　　要：如何理解《合同法》第 5 1条 ,是合同法颁行后民法学界讨论最多的问题之一。学者之间的不同见解乃因所持解释前设不同 ,即对无权处分制度是通过债权行为 ,还是通过物权行为进行规制有不同立场。通过利益调和功能的比较 ,以及债权行为无效导致法律体系解释困境的说明 ,可以认为无论债权行为规制形式的具体方案如何设计都难以达成妥当结果。债权行为不因欠缺处分权而确定有效不会过度保护买受人 ,能够达成最佳制度效果。因而 ,物权行为规制形式具有合理性。鉴于我国现行法并不认可处分行为独立性 ,所以不宜认为无权处分行为包括债权行为的履行行为。在我国现行法背景下《合同法》第 5 1条仅调整无需履行而直接发生权利变动效果的合同关系 ,具体类型主要为一般动产抵押合同与质押合同 ,适用机会极其有限。How to understand the 51st clause of LAW OF CONTRACT is one of the questions debated most by civil law circle after the promulgation of Law of Contract. The debate is aroused by different supposition for its explanation, that is they have different opinions on whether according to act of credit or juristic act of real right to define the unauthorized punishment. The current law of our country doesn't admit the independence of the act of punishment, so it's not very reasonable to think unauthorized punishment includes performance of act of credit. Under the current legal background, the 51st clause of LAW OF CONTRACT only regulates the contract relationship leading to the change of rights directly without performance which includes general chattel mortgage contract and mortgage contract with limited chances to be used.

关 键 词：无权处分 无权处分行为 债权行为 处分行为 《合同法》 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]