从一起案件看以房抵债的法律效力

On Legal Validity from a Case of Recompensing the Debt with House

文章从剖析一个案例开始,分析了经济生活中经常发生的以物抵债现象,辨析了以物抵债与流质契约的关系,从以物抵债的不同效力学说阐述了不同效力认定的理由。以物抵债与流质契约二者虽有不同,但法律禁止其具有相同的法理基础。通过对最高院相关司法解释的对比剖析得出,法律虽然对以物抵债行为没有直接规定,但其基本精神是否定以物抵债的效力,案件的处理符合我国的立法精神。

Starting from the analysis of a case, this paper analyzes the phenomenon of recompensing the debt with goods that of- ten occurs in the economic life and its relationship with fluidity contract, and expounds the reasons for different validity cognizance from the different validity theory about the debt-for-goods. It argues that although there are differences between the material debt payment and fluidity contract, the law forbids them from the same legal basis. Through the comparative analysis of the relevant judicial interpretations given by the Supreme Court, it is concluded that although the law does not directly stipulate the behavior of debt repayment by goods, the basic spirit of Chinese law is to negate the effect of debt repayment by goods, and the case handling conforms to China＇s legislative spirit.