论交付在票据质权设定中的意义

On the Delivery in the Establishment of Bill Pledge

交付可否成立票据质权,是票据质押问题的核心争议之一。在《票据法》不承认单纯交付可以转让票据权利的情况下,根据交付不能成立票据质权,即使存在质押合同也不能设定票据质权。《物权法》第224条没有区分证券的具体类型,规定指示性质的票据可以根据质押合同和交付成立质权,与民法理论上指示证券应背书转让的规则相悖。学界认为依质押合同和票据交付可以成立物权法上一般债权质权的观点,则忽略了票据本身表彰的仍是票据权利,而不是一般债权;只有在票据权利依法被确认为一般民事权利时,才可能成立一般债权质权。在此之前,以其为一般债权设定质权存在法理上的困境。在这一意义上,物权法规定与票据法规定直接形成冲突,有必要在立法上区分指示证券和无记名证券:规定指示证券应以背书方式转让和设定质权,无记名证券以交付转让和设定质权;明确违反法定转让方式的法律后果。

Whether the delivery can establish bill pledge,is one of the key disputes in bill pledge issue.Because the Negotiable Instruments Law admits simple delivery can transfer the right of bill,only the delivery cannot establish bill pledge,even if there is a pledge contract. The article 224 of Property Law doesn't distinguish the specific types of securities,so that the bill with indicating nature can be established by a pledge contract and delivery,which is contradict to the civil law theory according to the instruction that securities should be endorsement transferred. The view about pledge contract in accordance with bill delivery can establish a general pledge of obligation in the Property Act ignores the bill itself is still the right of bill,not the general creditor's right,only the bills right is considered as the general civil right,the general pledge of obligation can be established. Heretofore,setting the pledge by the bill right as the general creditor's right has the dilemma on legal principle. In this sense,the provisions in the Property Law and the Negotiable Instruments Law form directly conflicts,and it is necessary to distinguish unregistered securities and instructions securities,prescribing instructions securities should transfer and establish pledge by endorsement,and unregistered securities should transfer and establish pledge by delivery. The legal consequences caused by obeying legal transfer modes should be cleared.