论我国不动产买卖风险转移规则的重构——以比较法为视角

Rebuilding of Risk Transfer in Real Estate Transaction in China:from the perspective of Comparison

《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》及《国际商事通则》等国际公约或示范法均以动产买卖为规制原型,美、德、法、日等发达国家和我国买卖合同立法亦同,对不动产交易风险转移的特殊性关注不够。实践中,不动产买卖风险转移问题争议极大,主流观点认为《合同法》第142条确立了交付主义规则,且未区分动产与不动产,但理论界不乏质疑者。论文考察主要国家(地区)、国际公约风险转移规则及其演变进程,认为风险转移规则大致经历所有者主义到动产适用交付主义,不动产适用所有者主义再到交付主义的演变进程,但目前大多数国家仍处于第二阶段,我国一概适用交付主义有立法超前之嫌,且易引发个案争议。而不动产交易适用所有者主义,与当事人取得所有权的交易目的相符,能够公平合理地分配风险,有利于实现程序正义和个案公正。

IInternational conventions or model laws,such as the CISG and PICC,all take movable property as the prototype and pay insufficient attention to the special nature of real estate transaction risks transfer.Sales contract legislations in the United States,Germany,France,Japan and other developed countries,and China as well,are also the same.In practice,the issue of risk transfer of real estate trading is extremely controversial.The majority view is that Article 142 of the Contract Law of PRC establishes the rules of delivery and there’s no difference between movable property and real property.However,the idea is questioned by some theorists.Risk transfer rules of major countries(regions)and international conventions are inspected.The conclusion is risk transfer rules generally evolves from“ownership”to“delivery”for movable property,and“ownership”for real estate,and then to“delivery”.However,most countries are still in the second stage.China adopts delivery without exception,which might cause suspicion of legislative advance and controversies.“Ownership”should be applied to real estate transactions,because the parties are aimed at obtaining ownership.Applicable ownership can distribute risks fairly and reasonably,realizing procedural justice and individual case justice.