查找:                      转第 显示法宝之窗 隐藏相关资料 下载下载 收藏收藏 打印打印 转发转发 小字 小字 大字 大字
【期刊名称】 《中国法学》
“契约+非要式+任意撤销权”:赠与的理论模式与规范分析
【作者】 李永军【作者单位】 中国政法大学{教授,博士生导师}
【中文关键词】 赠与合同;要物合同;任意撤销权;债因;缔约过失责任
【期刊年份】 2018年【期号】 4
【页码】 160
【摘要】 我国《合同法》第185条及第186条规定的赠与合同的效力,可以理解为“无偿+诺成+非要式+任意撤销权”模式,以区别于《德国民法典》和《法国民法典》上的“无偿+诺成+要式”模式。但从理论上说,这种模式并非唯一可行的模式,且存在与《民法总则》第16条规定衔接不畅的问题。而“任意撤销权”与合同基本原理的冲突还引发了对“任意撤销权”理解上的争议。本文认为,应将任意撤销的对象解释为“赠与人关于赠与的意思表示”而非赠与合同本身,从而为撤销人之缔约过失责任奠定理论和规范基础;对赠与合同究竟是负担行为还是处分行为问题的争议仅是一个解释视角的问题,仍可解释为负担行为;我国《合同法》第186条将任意撤销权限制在赠与物的权利转移之前行使的重要原因在于防止交付的赠与物失去基础根据而变为不当得利;尽管法律与司法解释之间存在不协调,但这不应影响未成年人或胎儿赠与情形下赠与人的任意撤销权。
【英文摘要】 For the validity of the gift contract stipulated in articles 185 and 186 of the Contract Law of China, it can be understood as the “gratuitous + consensual + informal + arbitrary right of revocation” model to distinguish from the “gratuitous + consensual + formal” model in the German Civil Code and the French Civil Code. However, in theory, this model is not the only feasible one, and has problems of disconnection with the provisions of article 16 of the General Principles of Civil Law. In addition, the conflict between the “arbitrary right of revocation” and the basic principles of the contract has caused controversy over the “arbitrary right of revocation”. This paper argues that the object of the arbitrary revocation should be explained as “the donor’s intention about the gift” instead of the gift contract itself, in this way, it lays a theoretical and normative foundation for the liability for negligence in contract of the people who revoke. Regarding whether the gift contract is the disposal act or act of debt, this paper believes that it is just a matter of explaining perspective and can still be interpreted as a disposal act. In addition, the important reason that article 186 of the Contract Law of China restricts the exercise of arbitrary right of revocation before the transfer of the rights of the gift is to prevent the delivered gift from losing foundation and turning into unjust enrichment. Finally, despite the inconsistency between the law and judicial interpretations, this paper argues that it should not affect the arbitrary right of revocation of the donor in the case of gifts to minors and fetus.
【全文】法宝引证码CLI.A.1256346    
  一、问题的提出
  我国《合同法》185条及第186条规定的赠与的效力模式构建,可以理解为“无偿+诺成+非要式+任意撤销权”的契约模式,但无论从现存的立法体例还是理论可能性而言,这都不是唯一的选择,甚至不是最合理的选择。在这种模式之下,下列疑问恐怕无法避免:(1)赠与为什么被构建为契约模式?将赠与定义为单方法律行为模式有何不可?理论上会存在什么障碍?即使是契约模式,为何必须是诺成契约而非要物契约或者要式契约?无论在理论上还是在我国最高人民法院的司法解释和司法判例中,一直不乏将赠与作为“要物合同”理解的范例和传统,而且从立法上看,有