行为经济学视角下担保型以物抵债的界定

The Definition of Secured Debt-in-kind from Behavioral Economics

《合同编通则司法解释》所采取的“债务履行期届满前/后”之标准无法清楚界定担保型以物抵债。界定担保型以物抵债的意义在于准确适用流担保禁止规则,无法清楚界定的深层次原因在于对流担保禁止规则的正当性基础存在认识偏差。从行为经济学和心理学的研究来看,流担保禁止规则的正当性基础应当是避免债务人因过度自信和盲目乐观而受损。从这个角度出发,可以对以物抵债协议进行再类型化:若债务人最终给付内容不是由其的履行能力决定,或债务人最终给付内容的不确定不会对其造成损失,则以物抵债协议不需要被限制;在其他情况下,有必要对以物抵债协议的效力予以限制。若当事人存在担保的意思,则应通过流担保禁止规则限制以物抵债协议的效力,否则就适用违约金酌减规则。

The criterion of“before/after the expiry of the period of performance of the obligation”adopted in Judicial Interpretation of the General Principles of the Contracts Part does not allow for a clear definition of the secured debt-in-kind.Defining secured debt-in-kind is vital for correctly applying the fluidity prohibition rule.The failure to define it clearly is rooted in a misunderstanding of the rule’s legitimacy basis.In behavioral economics and psychology,the fluidity prohibition rule’s legitimate basis is to prevent damage to the debtor caused by overconfidence and blind optimism.This can be achieved by re-categorizing the debt-in-kind.If the debtor’s final payment isn’t tied to its ability to perform or doesn’t pose uncertainty leading to loss,the effectiveness of the debtin-kind is unrestricted.In other cases,restricting the effectiveness of debt-in-kind is necessary.If parties intend to guarantee,the debt-in-kind’s effectiveness is limited by the fluidity prohibition rule;otherwise,discretionary liquidated damages rule applies.