论文部分内容阅读
我国《物权法》颁布之后,关于第231条的解释,学界的普遍观点是我国已经承认了商事留置权制度,但也有学者对此表示反对,认为仅仅依靠一个但书条款是不能认为我国确认了商事留置权制度的。因为《物权法》的231条只是规定了企业不受同一法律关系的影响,并未明文规定商事留置权的主体、客体和标的等构成要件。所以,在《物权法》已经实施了六年多的时间的情况下,从理论上研究商事留置权的构成要件,以填补我国商事留置权的缺陷,同世界立法主流靠近,为我国真正意义上确立商事留置权作理论基础。
After the enactment of “Property Law” in our country, there is a common view in academia about the interpretation of Article 231 that our country has admitted the system of commercial liens, but some scholars also oppose it. They think that relying solely on a proviso can not be considered as a confirmation of commercial Lien system. Because 231 of the Property Law only stipulates that enterprises are not affected by the same legal relationship, and does not expressly stipulate the elements such as the subject, object and subject of the commercial liens. Therefore, under the condition that “Property Law” has been implemented for more than six years, it is necessary to study the constitutional elements of commercial liens in order to fill the shortcomings of the commercial liens in China close to the mainstream of the world legislation and to establish a real sense for our country Commercial liens as a theoretical basis.