无权处分合同效力的比较与分析

Comparing and Analyzing the Effect of No-right Disposition Contract

无权处分合同,民法通则颁布以前的我国大陆,采用法国的意思主义模式,台湾采用物权形式主义模式,香港、澳门实行的是债权意思主义变动模式.对于无权处分合同的效力,大陆实行效力待定原则;合同的效力取决于权利人是否追认及出卖人事后能否取得处分权;澳门实行无效原则,但可在符合法律规定的特定情况下使无效变为有效;台湾法律对此虽元明确规定,但理论和实务上都属于效力待定原则;香港法律从实际需要出发,实行权利瑕疵担保原则.由此可知,无权处分合同的效力存在三种原则:完全有效原则、无效原则和效力待定原则,大陆民事立法应取消效力待定制度,实行以无效为原则,以有效为例外的制度.

The no-right disposition contract, before issuing the General Provisions of Civil Law in the mainland, adopted France opinion form, while Taiwan regime adopted the form of right in rem and Hong Kong and Marco practiced the varying form of creditor's opinion. In regarding to the effect of no-right disposition the mainland practices the principle of non-settled effect. The effect of the contract lies in whether the owner recognizes retroactively and whether the seller can get the right to dispose the property later. Marco practices the principle of no-effect, but the no-effect can be changed into effect in case of the particular circumstance where there is legal stipulation. Though there is no such definite stipulation in Taiwan, it belongs to the non-settled effect theoretically and practically. The law in Hong Kong , out of the actual practice, carries out the principle of fault guarantee right. From the above mentioned, it is known that the effect of no-right disposition contract has three different principles: the principle of complete effect, the principle of non-effect and that of non-settled effect. The civil legislation in the mainland should cancel the non-settled effect regulation and practices the system of no-effect and exception for effect principle.