票据单纯交付转让研究

发布时间：2018-10-12 07:25

【摘要】：单纯交付作为传统票据法理论中与背书转让并存的一种转让票据权利的方式,因其便捷性而备受青睐,是票据流通性的重要体现,并且已被除我国大陆地区《票据法》以外的各个国家和地区的票据法律所承认。对于我国《票据法》是否承认单纯交付转让的效力,理论界众说纷纭,司法实践中对于单纯交付转让效力的认定也莫衷一是。本文就此问题进行研究,力求找到使法律规定、理论观点和司法实践三者能够达成一致的方案。本文除引言和结论外,共分为三章:第一章讨论单纯交付转让的理论基础,为后文的分析和论证提供理论支撑。第一节主要介绍单纯交付的适用范围和特点,在现实生活中的意义及存在的相关风险。第二节主要对票据行为、非票据行为、票据关系、非票据关系、票据法上的非票据关系、非票据法上的非票据关系、票据上权利、票据法上权利等票据法所特有的法律术语进行分析和梳理,尝试建立一个严密、连贯的“票据行为—票据权利”体系。第三节主要介绍域外立法例中对无记名票据和空白背书是如何规定的,并进行对比。第二章讨论我国是否承认单纯交付转让以及是否有必要予以承认的问题。第一节介绍了我国现行《票据法》的立法背景及不承认票据无因性、单纯交付的相关原因。第二节在总结理论界现有观点的基础上,通过分析得出我国目前不承认单纯交付转让这一结论。第三节则从司法实践的状况、票据流通性的要求和国际接轨的需求出发,论证承认单纯交付转让实为必要之举。第三章主要分析在我国现有法律规定的框架内,承认单纯交付转让需要做出哪些调整。第一节主要通过对几种反对空白背书假设的分析,论证我国应当予以承认。第二节讨论无记名票据、空白票据与单纯交付的关系。第三节讨论现有公示催告制度存在的弊端,及在此制度下单纯交付可能面临的困境,并提出解决途径。结论部分总结全文。
[Abstract]:As a way to transfer the rights of negotiable instruments coexisting with endorsement in the traditional negotiable instrument law theory, pure delivery is favored because of its convenience, and it is an important embodiment of the circulation of bills. And has been recognized by the bill laws of all countries and regions except the mainland of China. There are different opinions on whether our country's negotiable instrument Law recognizes the effect of pure delivery of transfer, and there are different opinions on the recognition of the validity of simple delivery of transfer in judicial practice. This paper studies this problem and tries to find a way to reach agreement among legal regulation, theory and judicial practice. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this paper is divided into three chapters: the first chapter discusses the theoretical basis of pure delivery transfer, which provides theoretical support for the later analysis and demonstration. The first section mainly introduces the scope of application and characteristics of pure delivery, its significance in real life and the related risks. Section II deals mainly with acts of instruments, acts of non-negotiable instruments, relations between non-negotiable instruments, non-negotiable relations in negotiable instruments law, non-negotiable relations in non-negotiable instruments law, and rights on instruments, This paper analyzes and combs the special legal terms of negotiable instrument law, such as right in negotiable instrument law, and tries to establish a strict and coherent system of "bill behavior-bill right". The third section mainly introduces how to define and compare bearer bills and blank endorsements. The second chapter discusses whether our country recognizes the simple transfer of delivery and whether it is necessary to recognize it. The first section introduces the legislative background of our country's current negotiable instrument Law and the reasons for not admitting the non-causality of the bill and simply delivering it. In the second section, on the basis of summing up the existing viewpoints of the theoretical circle, we draw the conclusion that our country does not recognize the simple transfer of delivery at present. The third section, proceeding from the situation of judicial practice, the requirement of negotiable instrument circulation and the demand of international connection, proves that it is necessary to admit the simple delivery of transfer. The third chapter mainly analyzes what adjustments should be made in the framework of the existing laws of our country. The first section demonstrates that China should recognize it by analyzing several hypotheses against blank endorsement. Section two discusses the relationship between bearer instruments, blank instruments and simple delivery. The third section discusses the drawbacks of the existing public notice system, and the difficulties which may be faced with the simple delivery under this system, and puts forward some solutions. The conclusion part summarizes the full text.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.287

【相似文献】