论检验期间

Inspection Period

检验期间的对象为不真正义务,而非民事权利,直至期满时买受人一直未提出质量异议的,排除物的瑕疵担保责任。这些决定了它不同于诉讼时效和除斥期间,也不同于权利失效,应为民法上的独立的时间制度。把异议权作为检验期间的对象,误解了民事权利和民事义务之间的逻辑关系,难以成立;将检验期间划归除斥期间,贬低百余年来海峡两岸的民法关于形成权为除斥期间的对象的学说,不符合权利期间制度及其理论不断纯化、分化的历史发展规律,不应得到赞同。检验期间与质量保证期应为各自独立的不同制度,发挥着不同的作用,但因《中华人民共和国合同法》第158条第2款后段的表述,不免使人疑惑,实务中的某些约定更加深了它们分界的模糊。正确的解读应是坚持二者各负其责的立场,除非当事人另有约定,且有效。

The object of inspection period is obliegenheiten,but not civil right. If the buyer has not raised any quality objection at the end of the term,liability for warrant against defects would be exclusion. The inspection period should be an independent time system in civil law,which is different from the period of limitation of action and the period of exclusion. The right of objection is not the object of inspection period,otherwise,the logical relationship between civil rights and civil obligations will be confused. The view that inspection period should be putting into the exclusion period is not in accordance with the doctrine that the object of exclusion period is forming right. Considering that this view does not conform to the rule of historical development that the system of rights period and its theory should be continuous purification and differentiation,it is not acceptable. The inspection period and the quality assurance period should be separate and distinct systems and play different roles,but the boundary is ambiguous provided that the confusing expression in the second paragraph of Article 158 of the Chinese Contract Law and some special arrangement in contract in practice. The correct interpretation is that each system would be responsible for its responsibility,except as otherwise agreed upon by the parties.