民法典体系下《合同法》第51条的存废

Persistence or Abrogation of Article 51 of the Existing Contract Law Under the Civil Code System

目前公布的民法典草案为了回避是否采取物权行为独立性、无因性理论的争议,取消了《合同法》第51条的规定。此举将产生破坏各方利益平衡,两种无权处分效力不一,需要法官在适用法律时运用类推、推断等方法先行解释法律而解释结果可能不一致等弊端。采取物权行为独立性不等于承认物权行为无因性。在民法典草案合同编(二审稿)第387条的基础上,采取物权行为独立性理论(不承认物权行为无因性),保留《合同法》第51条,将其中的“处分”解释为单方法律行为,可以避免上述弊端并保持司法实践的连贯性。基于民法体系的协调性要求,应将我国物权变动模式由债权形式主义改为“折衷主义”;把保留的《合同法》第51条的内容规定在民法典的总则部分。

The Civil Code Draft promulgated at present cancels the provision of Article 51 of the existing Contract Law in order to avoid the argument that whether the Code should adopt the theories of independence and no-cause of an act of real right. This will damage the balance of interests of all parties and cause different legal consequences of the two unauthorized dispositions. It will also cause inconsistent interpretation results in the application of law due to judges’ analogy and inference of it. Adopting the theory of independence of an act of real right does not mean the recognition of the theory of no-cause of it. On the basis of Article 387 in the Contract of the Civil Code Draft, the above disadvantages could be avoided and the consistency of a judicial practice could be maintained by adopting the theory of independence of an act of real right (not recognizing the theory of no-cause of an act of real right), maintaining Article 51 of the existing Contract Law and interpreting the “disposition” as unilateral legal act. Under the requirement of coordination of the civil law system, the pattern of real right alteration should be changed from the formalism of creditor’s right to “eclecticism”;and Article 51 of the existing Contract Law should be included in the General Provisions of the Civil Code.