查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 論兩岸票據法--票據之抗辯=Comparative Study on the Laws of Negotiable Instruments on Both Sides of the Taiwan Strait: The Protection of the Obligor's Right |
---|---|
作 者 | 王中一; | 書刊名 | 東吳法律學報 |
卷 期 | 15:2 2004.02[民93.02] |
頁 次 | 頁309-358 |
分類號 | 587.4 |
關鍵詞 | 對人抗辯; 對物抗辯; 限制抗辯; 記載事項; 無權代理; 行為能力; 善意持票人; 惡意及重大過失; 偽造; 變造; 塗銷; 提存; 時效; 禁止轉讓; 例外不履行; 背書轉讓; 對價; 不相當對價; Defenses; Legal defenses; Against certain person; Against everybody; Restrictions upon defenses; Exceptions of the restrictions; Insertion; Agent without actual authorization; Legal disposing capacity; Bona fide holder; Mala fide and gross wrongful act; Forged signature; Alteration; Expunged and rubed out; Be deposited in accordance with laws; Prescription; Non-negotiable; Defaults; Successive and consistent indorsements; Corresponding pay; Undue pay; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 兩岸票據法大致皆是遵循大陸法系(日內瓦統一票據法公約為代表)之立法例傾向對於債權人(善意之執票人及第三人)之利益保護。此一基本立法政策,相對的也使得票據債務人的抗辯權受到了限制。在某種意義上,票據法即是一部限制票據抗辯的法律。又為了平衡債權人與債務人之利益,維持社會一定的正義,各國立法例又在其法律中建立了「票據抗辯」及「某些法定例外」,兩岸票據法也不例外。 兩岸票據法又因各自「社會情況之不同、票據這用實務歷史長錢之不同」,致使兩岸立法政策之著眼點也就不同。故如前述在參考各國立法先例時,取捨之間,各自之法條文字、內容也就出現了某些差異。甚至有時基於政策考量,沒有完全依循國際問所強調之立法原則,例如「無因性」原則。 本文為敘述方便,遵循了大多數學者之「物的抗辯與人的抗辯」之基本分類架構進行分析、討論,又特將「對人的抗辯」中之「票據抗辯之限制及票據抗辯限制之例外」,用專節就兩岸法律條文之規定,案例從不同之角度加以討論(例如:記載事項、時效、偽造、變造、原因不法、惡意、對價、當事人間特別約定等方面)。 在結論中,建議兩岸各自審酌本身社會之經濟、法制觀念之普及度等等因素,於未來修訂法律時,進一步參考外國立法例(特別美國U.C.C.)及實務經驗適度調整其本身之法律規定,使能逐步接近國際上完善票據制度之立法先例,以便使票據制度運作順暢,對社會、經濟之發展有更多之貢獻。 |
英文摘要 | The laws of negotiable instruments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait follow the continental legal systems. Owing to the special needs in each society, some differences exist between the laws thereof, including the legal defense systems to protect the obligor's right. This paper systematically studies the similarities and differences between the two systems: First, this paper discusses the legal theory of the legal defenses of the obligor. Second, this paper explores the “defenses” set up against everybody by the obligor. Third, this paper discusses the defenses set up against a certain person by the obligor. Fourth, this paper deals with the restrictions upon the defenses set up against a holder by the obligor. Fifth, this paper looks into the legal exceptions of the restrictions upon defenses set up against a holder by law. Finally, this paper points out some deficiencies in the laws of negotiable instruments on both sides of the Taiwan Strait and give some suggestions for future amendment. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。