论自然人之间借款合同的实践性——反思《合同法》第210条

The Practicality of Loan Contract between the Natural Persons——Reconsidering The Article 210 of Contract Law

实践合同存在的必要性受到民法上意思自治原则的挑战。我国《合同法》第210条将自然人之间借款合同规定为实践合同,此在司法实务似未有疑问,但理论界对其质疑不断。首先,立法未明确说明为何将"提供借款"作为合同生效的要件,而区别于保管合同中的成立要件,此有损于体系的一致性;其次,将"提供借款"作为强制性的生效要件,此为国家意志不正当介入私人领域,似有越俎代庖之嫌;再次,应区分合同之有偿、无偿,并作不同规定,因为在此两种情况下,贷款人之利益状态有明显不同。故有必要对《合同法》第210条进行重新架构。

The necessity of practice contract is challenged by the principle of autonomy.The Article 210 of China＇s Contract Law prescribes this contract as practical,which is not doubted in the judicial practice,but there are many theoretical circles.Firstly,legislation is not clear why the ＂lending＂ as the element of contract enforcement,which is different from storage contracts.This is detrimental to the system of coherence;secondly,prescribing ＂lending＂ as a mandatory elements is legitimate intervention in the private sector.Thirdly,we should distinguish the contract when paid and unpaid,as the right condition is obviously different.It is necessary for this provision of China＇s Contract Law to be re-framed.