定金契约要物性的批判与重塑

发布时间：2018-04-29 14:48

本文选题：定金 + 要物契约　；参考：《现代法学》2015年06期

【摘要】：古罗马时期物物交换模式下的契约均为要物契约,受此影响,当时定金契约的要物性具有合理性。随着一般等价物的出现,物物交换之要物性契约的存在基础已经发生改变,我国定金契约仍遵循古罗马时期的要物性理念会引起诸多悖论:理论上,现实交付及物之返还的要物性法理已经与现代社会强调交易的便捷及效率的时代背景不符。在此之下,当今为要物性契约的存在理由所提出的反悔权理论,实质上是赋予当事人两次运用意志的机会以决定是否受已达成契约的约束,其本质仍然为诺成性契约的意志决定论。实践中,要物性理念并不能达到发挥定金的担保功能及判断一方对主契约之履约能力的目的。且在要物性理念下,因分期的部分交付之定金契约无论认定为无效还是部分有效都存在逻辑上的矛盾,其唯一解决办法是分期的部分交付将使整个定金契约生效,从而得出定金契约应当是诺诚性的结论。在要物性理念前提下却推导出诺成性结论,表明了定金契约的要物性仅徒有其表。因此,在未来制定《中国民法典》时应将定金契约诺成化,并应仅保留解约定金一种类型,并作相应的制度设计。
[Abstract]:The contracts in the barter mode in ancient Rome were all important contracts, which had the rationality of the materiality of the deposit contracts at that time. With the appearance of the general equivalent, the existence foundation of the material contract of barter exchange has been changed, and the deposit contract of our country still follows the idea of material property in ancient Rome period will cause many paradoxes: theoretically, The legal principle of materiality of real delivery and return of goods is inconsistent with the background of modern society which emphasizes the convenience and efficiency of transaction. In this context, the theory of the right of retrogression, which is put forward for the reason of existence of material contract, essentially gives the parties two opportunities to use their will to decide whether or not they are bound by the contract that has been reached. Its essence is still the will determinism of the promise contract. In practice, the concept of materiality can not achieve the purpose of giving full play to the guarantee function of the deposit and judging one party's ability to perform the main contract. And under the concept of materiality, there are logical contradictions in the deposit contract of partial delivery by installment, whether it is invalid or partially valid, and the only solution is that the partial delivery of the installment will make the whole deposit contract effective. So that the deposit contract should be the conclusion of sincerity. On the premise of the concept of materiality, the conclusion of "normalcy" is deduced, which shows that the materiality of deposit contract only has its surface. Therefore, in the future, when the Civil Code of China is formulated, the deposit contract should be made into a contract, and only one type of termination deposit should be retained, and the corresponding system should be designed.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学;
【基金】：国家社科基金青年项目“农村土地融资担保法律问题研究”(13CFX076)
【分类号】：D923

【参考文献】