摘要
《民法典》字面上规定的“诺成+任意撤销权”的赠与模式,在任意撤销权与债的约束力之间似乎存在矛盾。此种规范模式产生于民法继受过程中的改造,有必要通过回归历史传统予以解释重构。罗马法上,赠与为权利转移行为提供“原因”,其自身不具有独立的法律效力。现代法上,原因概念衰落,罗马法上的赠与演变为现实赠与,要求转移权利后赠与才能产生效力。法国法规定的公证赠与因“要式”目标难以实现,最终只能与现实赠与并行。中国的“诺成+任意撤销权”模式,其实质是现实赠与,可以将此种规范模式解释为“赠与原因合意+处分行为”。此外,中国还设置了公证赠与和作为诺成合同的具有公益、道德义务性质的赠与,二者均产生债权效力。《民法典》规定的三种赠与,均构成处分行为的“名义”。
The“promise&right of arbitrary revocation”model of gift literally stipulated by the Civil Code seems to have caused a contradiction between the right of arbitrary revocation and the binding force of the debt.This normative model is produced from the transformation in the process of transplantation of civil law,and it is necessary to explain and reconstruct it by returning to the historical tradition.In Roman law,gift provides a“cause”for the transfer of rights and has no independent legal effect.In modern law,the concept of cause has declined,and the gift in Roman law has evolved into realistic gift,which requires the transfer of rights before the gift goes into effect.In French law,notarized gift is designed as formal contract,but it is difficult to achieve the goal of“formal contract”,thus notarized gift should only be applied with realistic gift in parallel.The“promise&right of arbitrary revocation”model in China is actually the realistic gift,and it should be interpreted as“agreement about gift causa&act of disposition”.In addition,China has also set up notarized gifts and gifts with the nature of public welfare and moral obligations as a promise contract,both of which have the effect of generating debt.All of those three sorts of gift stipulated by Civil Code constitute the“title”of the act of disposition.
作者
翟远见
栾志博
ZHAI Yuan-jian;LUAN Zhi-bo(College of Comparative Law,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing,102249;Law School,University of Bologna,Bologna,Italy,40126)
出处
《云南社会科学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第6期99-111,共13页
Social Sciences in Yunnan
