查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | 票據之時效期間=Prescription of a Bill |
---|---|
作 者 | 賴世琳; | 書刊名 | 嶺東財經法學 |
卷 期 | 6 2013.12[民102.12] |
頁 次 | 頁59-77 |
分類號 | 587.4 |
關鍵詞 | 時效; 提示期限; 發票日; 到期日; 拒絕證書; 前手; 本票發票人; 匯票承兌人; 支票發票人; 背書人; 保證人; Prescription; From the date of maturity; From the date of a protest drawn within proper time; From the day when the endorser took up and paid the bill; From the day when he himself was sued; Acceptor; Endorser; Drawer; The protest for non-payment; |
語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 我國對於債權之消滅時效採債務人抗辯權發生主義,票據又屬短期時效,故執票人應儘速行使權利而使票據債務人早日脫卻嚴重責任,了結票據關係。票據日時效期間,我國採差等主義,依票據法第22條分為3項:(1)第1項所規定者,係對匯票承兌人及本票發票人之付款請求權為3年,別無爭議。但對於支票發票人之權利,依多數說,基於委託證券,應遵期向付款人提示,遭拒絕後,始得向發票人追索,似為追索權。(2)第2項乃執票人對前手追索權,其時效起算日,依舊通說,始日不算入。但依新說則自當日起算。至於前手係排除主債務人。但支票情形,又發生提示日與退票日期之爭議,有待修法解決。(3)第3項乃受追索之背書人所行使第二次以後之再追索權。已為清償之背書人自清償之日起算,當中已為清償者,借用日本學說,係採由債權人取回票據之日,不問是否已使債權人獲得滿足之日。另外,匯票本票之保證人對其前手追索權亦屬本項範圍。日本票據法,明確區分信用證券與支付證券之立法。信用證券對於時效採差等主義。但對於支付證券之時效採均一主義,則於追索權時效像自提示期限經過後起算,不同於我國採自提示日起算。另外,再追索之背書人,依日本之學說,採不限於已為現實清償而取回票據,係重形式,現實接受票據證券之返還即可構成。比方面於我國鋒、較少介入研究者,筆者不揣譾陋,大膽嘗試,祈能有所創見。 |
英文摘要 | A right of arising on a bill may no longer be exercised after three years have elapsed. That right is a system of prescription. Against the maker, or his guarantor of a note payable on demand, form the date of the note. All actions arising out of a bill of exchange against the acceptor are barred after three years , reckoned form the date of maturity, payment of a bill of which falls due on alegal holiday cannot be demanded until the next business day. Where any of these proceedings must be taken within a certain limit of time the last of which is a legal holidays the limit of time is extended until the first business day which follows the expiration of that time. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。