对赌纠纷裁判路径探究:性质、履行规则与诉讼构造  

A study on the Approach to Adjudication of Gambling Disputes:Nature,Performance Rules and Litigation Structure

作　　者：王尚飞 WANG Shang-fei(School of Law,Liaoning University,Shenyang 110036,China)

机构地区：[1]辽宁大学法学院,辽宁沈阳110036

出　　处：《福建金融管理干部学院学报》2022年第4期11-17,26,共8页Journal of Fujian Institute of Financial Administrators

摘　　要：《九民纪要》确立了对赌协议的效力认定回归到合同理论的判断上、协议的履行依附于公司法规范的二分观点。对赌协议与射幸合同、附条件合同具有一定的相似性,但将其性质定位于条款附条件合同更为妥当。对赌条款在诉讼中履行规则的不同进路表明对赌纠纷案件在法律适用中性质认定模糊、裁判标准并未统一。对赌纠纷案件诉讼体系构造较为复杂。对赌纠纷诉讼主体与对赌主体高度吻合;对赌纠纷案由划分混乱,是裁判标准无法获得统一的症结所在;对赌纠纷以合同法规范为请求权基础,尽管其抗辩事由种类繁多,但是均难以为对赌的裁判提供合理支持。Summary of the ninth National Judicial Work Conference on Civil and Commercial Matters has established the dichotomy view that the validity of the betting agreement is returned to the judgment of the contract theory and the performance of the agreement is dependent on the corporate law norms.There are some similarities between the betting agreement and the conditional contract,but it is more appropriate to define it as the conditional contract.The different ways of implementing the rules of the clauses in litigation indicate that the nature of the dispute cases in the application of law is ambiguous and the judgment standards are not unified.The litigation system of gambling dispute cases is complex.The litigation subject of betting dispute is highly consistent with the betting subject;The disordered division of the gambling disputes is the crux of the problem that the judgment standards cannot be unified.The dispute of gambling is based on the standard of contract law.Although there are many kinds of defense reasons,it is difficult to provide reasonable support for the judgment of gambling.

关 键 词：对赌协议 附条件合同 履行规则 诉讼主体 

分 类 号：D922.291.91[政治法律—经济法学]