论无权处分与善意取得-法学专业论文.docx

I I 摘 要 在不同的物权变动模式中，无权处分的含义不同，因而对无权处分合同的效力 及对善意取得的理解也存在差异。在我国合同法公布后，关于第 51 条无权处分制 度的规定一直存有争论，而就最高人民法院公布的买卖合同的效力规则来看，无权 处分合同原则上成为有效，由此带来的与合同法的规定是否存在冲突、在此情形下 的善意取得是否还能适用等问题值得思考。本文将在不同的物权变动模式之下，探 讨无权处分与善意取得的关系，并联系不同国家立法例在此问题上的规定，最终对 我国合同法与最高人民法院的司法解释在无权处分合同效力的规定上是否存在冲 突、两者的立法选择等方面做出分析，以期对新的司法解释的相关规定作出评价。 全文共分为三个部分： 第一章：不同物权变动模式下无权处分与善意取得的关系，从三种不同的物权 变动模式的特点入手，将不同物权变动模式之下的无权处分与善意取得做比较法考 察。 第二章：关于《合同法》第 51 条的争论及对善意取得的理解，介绍了无权处 分效力待定说、有条件有效说、有效说三种不同的争论及对善意取得的理解。 第三章：对 2012 年《关于审理买卖合同纠纷案件适用法律问题的解释》中无 权处分合同效力的评价及其对善意取得的影响，联系梁慧星先生对新的司法解释的 观点，作出关于该解释的评价。 关键词：无权处分；善意取得；物权变动模式；权利救济 II II Abstract In the different real right change pattern, meanings of unauthorized disposition are different, so the efficiency of unauthorized disposition contracts and understanding of bona fide acquisition also could be of lots differences. After the publishing of the Chinese Contract Law, regulations about fifty-first unauthorized disposition system have always been controversial, but in terms of validity rules of the Supreme Peoples court announced in the sale contract, contract of unauthorized disposition principle is effective, while whether the resulting and contract law has become conflict and the bona fide acquisition could also be worth thinking in this case. This paper is based on the different mode of real right changing, and trying to explore the relationship of unauthorized disposition and bona fide, connecting the relate provisions of different national legislation on this issue, making analysis on Chinas contract law and the Supreme Court judicial interpretation in the specified effectiveness of unauthorized disposition contract existed on the legislation choice conflict, At last to evaluate the new judicial interpretation of the relevant provisions The full text is divided into three parts: The first chapter: The different change of property right relationship has no right to dispose of and bona fide mode, starting from the characteristics of three different patterns of real right