摘要
针对动产分期付款买卖的普及和分期付款合同的特殊性,对普通买卖合同动产分期付款买卖的法律适用规定的局限性进行分析,指出我国应引入分期付款所有权保留制度作为法律没有特殊规定和当事人没有约定的补充。保留所有权条款给人一种字面上的误解,实际上它是一种对所有权的再次取回,把其称为取回所有权条款比较合适。最后论述如何理解我国《合同法》第167条第2款的"使用费"和使用费数额的计算方法的问题。
On the basis of the popularization of the massive personal property installment business and the particularity of the installment contract, by analyzing the inevitable limitation of the provisions merely applying to the common sale of contract, the paper pointed out that our country should introduce the retention of installment ownership as the supplement without the special provisions in law and engagements between the parties. However, title retention clause gives us a literal misunder- standing, as a matter of fact, it is a clause to bring back the owership, so it is more appropriate to call it recall right clause. Finally, it discussed how to understand the “user fee” to be taken according to the paragraph 2, article 167 of the contract law and its calculation.
出处
《大连海事大学学报(社会科学版)》
2008年第3期36-39,共4页
Journal of Dalian Maritime University(Social Science Edition)