通知不应作为指示交付构成要件——对我国《物权法》第26条的思考

来源 :安徽大学法律评论 | 被引量 : 0次 | 上传用户:jql002
下载到本地 , 更方便阅读
声明 : 本文档内容版权归属内容提供方 , 如果您对本文有版权争议 , 可与客服联系进行内容授权或下架
论文部分内容阅读
基于法律行为的动产物权变动,以交付标的物(《物权法》第23条~①)即移转物的直接占有为原则。但出让人未必直接占有转让物,多由承租人、借用人等占有媒介人事实管领转让物。若强行贯彻交付原则,由转让人从占有媒介人处取回转让物再交给受让人,费时耗力。因此《物权法》第26条规定以指示交付为例外(《物权法》第26条规定:“动产物权设立和转让前,第三人依法占有该动产的,负有交付义务的人可以通过转让请求第三人返 The change of real property rights based on legal acts is based on the principle of delivering the subject matter (Article 23 ~ ① of the Real Right Law), that is, the direct possession of the transferred goods. However, the transferor may not directly hold the transfer of property, and more than the lessee, borrower and other possession of the media transfer of fact. If the principle of delivery is forcibly enforced, it will be time-consuming and labor-intensive for the transferor to transfer the assignment from the possessor to the assignee. Therefore, Article 26 of the Property Law provides for the exception of the order delivery (Article 26 of the Property Law stipulates: ”Before the establishment and transfer of the property right of the movable property, the third party legally owns the movable property, and the person having the obligation of delivery may, through the assignment Request a third person to return
其他文献
好hǎo可kě怜lián呀yɑ!鱼yú儿ér被bèi一yì整zhěnɡ块kuài冰bīnɡ冻dònɡ住zhù了le。咦yí?仔zǐ细xì一yí看kàn,鱼yú儿ér竟jìnɡ能nénɡ在zài冰bīnɡ块kuài里li快kuài活huo地de游yóu来lái游yóu去qù呢ne。哈hā哈hā,原yuán来lái这zhè是shì一yì款kuǎn冰bīnɡ立lì方fānɡ鱼yú缸ɡānɡ,只zhǐ是s
期刊
本研究旨在调查中国小学、初中和高中学生的第二语言的感知学习风格、想象力、理想二语自我和二语动机行为。一份包括感知学习风格和二语学习动机的调查问卷被分别发放给1667