摘要
关于契约基金性质存在契约说和主体说两种观点,两者的本质区别在于法律表达相同价值判断结论时采取了不同的解释选择路径。中国契约基金立法应采取主体说,既符合现行民商法一般理论,又可以化解双重所有权解释困局。信托法不宜作为契约资管基金民商法层面的一般法,契约基金法应定位于民商事主体的一般法。中国契约基金应定位于准法人型主体,相关立法还应体现便捷性原则。
There are two views on the nature of contract funds: the contract theory and the subject theory. The essentialdifference between the two lies in the fact that the law expresses the same value judgment conclusion and adoptsdifferent interpretation choice paths. The legislation of China’s contract funds should take the subject theory, thatis, it conforms to the current general theory of civil and commercial laws, and can resolve the dilemma of doubleownership interpretation. The trust law should not be regarded as a general law at the level of civil and commerciallaw of the contract asset management funds. The contract fund law should be positioned as the general law of civiland commercial subjects. China’s contract funds should be positioned as the entity of a quasi-legal person, and therelevant legislation should also embody the principle of convenience.
出处
《云南社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2020年第4期55-62,186,共9页
Social Sciences in Yunnan
基金
河北省高等学校社科研究年度基金重点项目“我国金融领域收益权的立法研究”(项目号:SD191005)
河北经贸大学校内科研基金青年重点项目“我国相互保险立法研究”(项目号:2018QZ18)的阶段性成果。