摘要
中国物权法第26条关于指示交付的规定有利有弊,对于其利,必应否定;对于其弊,在解释论上,应最大限度地限缩其中所言"法"的范围,将若干第三人无权占有的情形视为"依法",而不作为"违法"对待。不宜一概否定指示交付场合让与物权的返还请求权。"出让人转让被人盗窃或遗失的手表一块,此时转让的返还请求权应包括对第三人的所有物返还请求权"之说,是合适的,不应否认。
The provision concerning indication delivery in article 26 of China＇ s property law has its advantagesand disadvantages. For its advantages, they should be denied, while for its disadvantages, in theory, they shouldnarrow to the largest extent the range of the word ＂law＂, treating the several situations that the third party hasno fight to possess the property as ＂in accordance with the law＂ rather than ＂illegal＂. It is not proper to totallydeny the delivery occasions to claim the return the real rights. The statement ＂when the transferor transfers alost or stolen watch ,the right of claim to return the original object includes claims against the third person＂ issuitable, and it should not be denied.
出处
《河南财经政法大学学报》
北大核心
2014年第4期62-67,共6页
Journal of Henan University of Economics and Law
关键词
指示交付
债权的返还请求权
物权的返还请求权
无占有动产的让与
indication delivery
the right of claim to return the creditor＇ s rights
the right of claim to return thereal rights
transfer personal property of no possession
