摘要
长期以来,我国票据设质要件在民商事法律中各成体系。《票据法》将质押背书作为票据质押的生效要件,原《物权法》、原《担保法》却将此作为对抗要件,转采交付生效主义。《民法典》虽然秉持有价证券的质权交付生效主义,但通过"但书规定"给予了《票据法》在票据质押上的适用空间,缓和了民商立法上的冲突。然而《民法典担保制度司法解释》又转而采取票据质押交付生效主义,且并未说明质押背书的作用,再次将票据质押的确认引入困境。票据质押属于商事交易范畴,应适用《票据法》规定,以设质背书作为生效要件。同时从法律体系的一致性角度出发,将以流通为中心的票据法立法理念作为两法协调的逻辑起点,类型化区分有价证券质押方式,并以电子票据的质押规定作为特别补充,从而为完善票据设质要件提供可行思路。
For many years, the pledging of bills in China has had different applications under civil and commercial law. The Bill Law takes the pledge endorsement as the effective element of bill pledges, while the former Property Law and the former Guarantee Law adopted delivery as determining effectiveness. Although the Civil Code upholds the delivery doctrine on pledged securities, it gives room for the application of the Bills Law through a proviso which seeks to ease conflicts between civil and commercial legislation. However, the judicial Interpretation of the Guarantee System of the Civil Code adopts the delivery of pledges as determining effectiveness, and does not explain the role of pledge endorsement,which once again brings the recognition of pledges of bills into potential conflict. This paper argues the pledge of a financial instrument belongs within the scope of commercial transactions, and the provisions of the Bills Law should be applied. It also offers suggestions for improving pledges of bills.
出处
《金融市场研究》
2021年第8期115-126,共12页
Financial Market Research
关键词
票据质押
背书生效
文义性
Pledging Bills
Validity of Endorsement
Textuality
