流质条款法律效力的实证分析

The Empirical Analysis of the Legal Validity of Liquidity Provisions

随着担保制度的发展,非典型担保和其他带有担保性质的法律关系逐步涌现,但对于抵押与质押之外的其他担保、非典型担保以及带有担保性质的法律关系中的流质约定,其效力如何,法律并无规定,实践中亦未形成一致定论。司法审判中,法院对流质条款的适用比较谨慎,一般采用自由裁量权和法律解释手段排除禁止流质规定的适用。流质条款是双方当事人意思自治的产物,其存在具有合理性,不应全盘禁止。在民法典的制定过程中,对于流质约定,法律应当采用许可主义,但应当设置一定的限制与配套措施。

With the development of the guarantee system, atypical guarantee and other legal relations with the nature of guarantee gradually emerge. For liquidity agreement in other guarantees besides mortgage and pledge,atypical guarantee and legal relations with the nature of guarantee, the validity is not stipulated by the law, and there is no consensus in practice. In judicial trial activities, the courts are cautious about the application of the liquidity provisions, generally using discretion and legal interpretation to exclude the application of the provisions prohibiting liquidity. The liquidity clause is the product of the autonomy of the will of both parties. Its existence is reasonable and should not be totally prohibited. In the process of formulating the Civil Code, the law should adopt"license doctrine" for the liquidity agreement, but it should set certain restrictions and measures.