优先购买权、法律规避与独立法律意义——以“上海外滩地王案”为分析视角

Pre-Emption Right,Evasion of Law and Independent Legal Significance

"上海外滩地王案"一审法院以《合同法》第52条第3项"以合法形式掩盖非法目的"为判决依据,认定系争间接收购无效。就对判决理由构成的分析来看,案件事实难以充分满足第52条第3项的全部构成要件。法院判决存在不能证立之虞。有学者以独立法律意义规则为依托,要求法院尊重不同法律规范之间的独立性,赋予金融创新更多生存空间。然而,独立法律意义规则的法理基础十分脆弱,存在重大缺陷;且该规则在其母国也正面临式微的局面。从法律体系具有价值强制的特征出发,法院应当积极探寻主观与客观的立法者意图,在确认法律漏洞存在时,通过类推适用加以填补;在确认规则缺失系立法者有意为之时,法院应当保持司法克制。

According to Article 52. 3 of Chinese Contract Law,the court nullified a stock-purchase agreement signed by SOHO China and other parties. From the perspective of legal reasoning of the judgment,because the elements of Article 52. 3 are not all met,the judgment could not be justified by itself. Independent legal significance doctrine is advocated by some scholars so that the courts should pay due respect to the independence of different legal norms. However,the foundations of this doctrine are very weak. Its future in its birthplace,the U. S.,is not so good as it seems. With the belief that the law system is value coherent,all the legal gaps should be fulfilled. Nevertheless,there is no room for judicial interference when the gap is deliberately designed by the legislature.