论文部分内容阅读
如果从物债二分的传统分析视角出发,使用借贷契约为债权契约,不应有拘束第三人的效力。但将视野投至我国台湾地区,因使用借贷契约仅具有债权效力所导致的拆屋还地事件近些年来不断在法院上演。由于拆屋还地会导致社会资源的极大浪费,衍生社会不稳定因素,因此是否需要在特殊情况下赋予使用借贷契约第三人效力,以及通过何种方式赋予使用借贷契约第三人效力就成了台湾晚近“民法”理论与实务最具争议之话题。而在这一热烈讨论背后所涉及的更深层次的问题是在既有的民法规则体系下,面对疑难案例,法律人应如何通过法学方法论的合理展开妥善处理个案中的难题。这一论题恰在2013年底引发了大陆学术界的激烈探讨,台湾地区的经验或可以给我们提供新的启示。
If we use the loan contract as the contract of indebtedness from the traditional analysis of bisection of the debt, we should not restrict the effectiveness of the third party. However, it has been hurled to court in Taiwan in recent years due to the fact that the use of loan contracts only has the effect of claims. As the demolition of housing will lead to great waste of social resources, social instability derived factors, so whether the need to give third-party effectiveness in the use of lending contracts under special circumstances, and by how to give effect to the use of third-party lending contracts Became the most controversial topic in Taiwan’s recent “civil law” theory and practice. However, the deeper issue behind this heated discussion is how to deal with the difficult problems in the case properly under the existing rules of civil law in the face of difficult cases and how legal people should reasonably carry out the legal methodology. This topic just started the intense discussion of mainland academic circles by the end of 2013. The experience in Taiwan may provide us with new inspiration.