摘要
《指导案例》67号'汤长龙诉周士海股权转让纠纷案'以《合同法》第167条应否准用于股权买卖为主题,展现了清晰的问题意识,但具体观点值得商榷。第167条之规范目的在于防止出卖人遭受额外的风险,所以配套司法解释要求当事人约定买受人分三期以上支付价款,学说又增加了出卖人交付标的物后买受人还有两期以上价款有待支付的要件。基于第167条及其规范目的,股权买卖与有体物买卖具有实质的相似性,应当准用该条第1款之解除规定。但从规范体系上看,该款因缺少催告要件而存在漏洞,应通过整体类推的方式予以填补,以形成适用于股权买卖的完整规则。由此还可以充分展现《合同法》第174条之法定准用的思考方法。
The Guiding Case No.67(Tang Changlong v.Zhou Shihai),being aware of the issue,sets an example of analogical application of Article 167 of the Contract Law on the equity transaction case,though some specific views are still open to discussion.The purpose of Article 167 is to protect the seller from suffering additional risks.To achieve this goal,it sets forth the preconditions that the parties reach an agreement that the buyer makes the payment by at least three installments and meanwhile two or more installments remain to be paid after the seller has fulfilled the obligation of delivery.Based on Article 167 and its purpose,the equity transaction and sales of res corporals bear lots of similarities in nature,which qualifies the analogical application of the termination rule in the first paragraph of this Article.However,from the perspective of the normative system,the loophole in this paragraph,due to the lack of the requirement of warning,should be filled up by holistic analogy,and thereby form the integrate rule for equity transaction.Thus,it can also reveal the reasoning method on the analogical application rule in Article 174.
作者
杨旭
YANG Xu(Law School,Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084,China)
出处
《现代法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2019年第4期196-209,共14页
Modern Law Science
