承租人优先购买权异议

房屋承租人优先购买权作为一项法律制度在我国的民事立法中很早就己经确立,这些规定对稳定房地产租赁法律关系,保障承租人可以优先得到房屋所有权,促进社会主义市场经济的健康快速发展具有重要意义。但是现有法律对该制度规定过于笼统,实际操作比较困难,造成司法实践中法律适用的困难和混乱,严重损害了承租人的权利。况且,对于承租人优先购买权之法律属性、行使条件及其限制等法律问题历来争论颇多。鉴于此,本文在我国现有法律规定的基础上,系统的阐述房屋承租人优先购买权的理论基础和法律性质,并主要针对《最高人民法院司法解释》对承租人的优先购买权规定的一些不健全之处进行了深入的探讨和研究,提出了一些合理建议,以期完善承租人优先购买权制度,维护承租人的合法权益、促进安全交易。     

房屋买卖时承租人优先购买权中的几个问题

我国民法上,房屋优先购买权制度具体体现为共有人的先买权、按份共有人的先买权和承租人的先买权,其中承租人的优先购买权制度,在房屋买卖诉讼中涉及的越来越多,而我国法律对此仅有原则性规定,导致在司法审判实践中对承租人的优先购买权制度争议诸多。本文拟从一个案例引出该制度存在的一些问题,并对承租人优先购买权的限制以及丧失优先购买权情形作了阐释,提出关注承租人优先购买权的限度及行使条件、诉讼规则设定的科学性问题。     

浅论侵害承租人优先购买权的法律救济

租人的优先购买权,是指在房屋租赁关系中,承租人按照法律规定所享有的、在出租人出奏租赁房屋给第三人时,承租人得以同等条件下优先于他人而购买的权利。承租人优先购买权制度源远流长,在国外可追溯到东罗马皇帝查士丁尼制定的啭让永佃权利时所有主有优先购买权”。我国古代法上也有‘位典卖倚当物业,先问房亲,房亲不要,次问东邻”。     

房屋承租人优先购买权若干问题简论

房屋承租人优先购买权为法定权利。该权利自房屋租赁合同生效之日起产生,于出租人出卖租赁房屋时得行使。承租人优先购买权受有限制。承租人的优先购买权在效力上主要是对第三人效力问题,在解决中应区分登记与未登记两种情形加以考虑。     

承租人优先购买权的损害赔偿研究

我国民事立法中关于优先购买权的规定不多,但一直规范有房屋承租人的优先购买权.不过,多数规定只是对承租人优先购买权的确认,该权利的行使及受到侵害后的救济措施却很不明确.最高人民法院<关于审理城镇房屋租赁合同纠纷案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释>中,虽然规定侵害承租人优先购买权的,承租人可以请求损害赔偿,但如何赔偿没有加以明确.承租人优先购买权是具有债权性的形成权,形成权具有可被侵害性,因此,在法律规定的合理期限内末通知承租人导致优先购买权不能行使、行使优先购买权的意思表示过程中受到不合理阻碍、优先购买权行使后导致该权利目的落空的,都构成对承租人优先购买权的侵害,应当承担相应的损害赔偿责任.     

浅析承租人优先购买权的限制

房屋承租人优先购买权是一项重要的法律制度,但由于规定简单原则,不易操作,且存在着过于强调承租人的权利,而忽视对出租人权益保护的弊端。本文认为在一定范围内对承租人优先购买权进行限制也是必要的。文中首先对承租人优先购买权的限制进行分析;其次,对承租人优先购买权的限制进行了案例分析。     

共有人优先购买权和房屋承租人优先购买权竞合之证伪——兼评《房屋租赁司法解释》第24条第1项的理解和适用

我国法律界对于共有人优先购买权和房屋承租人优先购买权竞合问题似乎已经有了定论,但其实这是一个根本不会发生的伪问题。作为参照的我国台湾地区不动产共有人优先购买权和基地承租人优先购买权竞合制度,由于制度背景的差异,对大陆地区其实并无借鉴价值。最高人民法院《关于审理城镇房屋租赁合同纠纷案件具体应用法律若干问题的解释》第24条第1项创立了共有物转让时共有人优先购买权制度,当共有物转让时共有人优先购买权与房屋承租人优先购买权发生竞合时,前者应当处于优先地位。     

试论房屋租赁中次承租人的优先购买权

承租人的优先购买权在当今世界各国及各地区民法中都已经得到普遍确认。我国现行立法确立了该制度,我国《合同法》第二百三十条规定,"出租人出卖租赁房屋的,应当在出卖之前的合理期限内通知承租人,承租人享有以同等条件优先购买的权利。"但是对于在合法转租的情况下,次承租人是否也享有优先购买权的问题在理论界一直是众说纷纭。假设次承租人也享有优先购买权,其与承租人的优先购买权的冲突应该怎样解决,孰先孰后?本文运用经济分析、价值分析等多种方法对优先购买权的性质及设立目的进行了研究,以期为该制度的性质厘清、准确适用与立法完善有所裨益。     

论我国房屋承租人的优先购买权

我国立法以及司法解释对房屋承祖人优先购买权作出了规定,但关于权利的主客体、行使条件以及权利效力的规定尚未具体化,司法实践中适用混乱,难以合理解决纠纷和保护承租人的合法权益.本文通过对我国房屋承租人优先购买权进行梳理,分析了现存规定的不足,提出了完善该制度的建议,以期发挥应有的功能.     

房屋承租人优先购买权若干争议之解决

长期以来,我国民事立法虽然多方承认房屋承租人之优先购买权,但由于该项制度之内部及外部呈现出来的明显的“规则不足”,造成了其在实务适用中的种种困难和问题。不可否认,房屋承租人优先购买权作为一项法定权利,具有保护房屋承租人有关权益的功能。但是,随着社会生活的具体化和多样化,对该项设计简单的制度也产生了许多疑问。     

Will the Supreme Court finally eliminate ERISA preemption?

David Trueman's article reviews the history of ERISA preemption by analyzing seminal Supreme Court cases and predicts the future of ERISA preemption in his analysis of recent federal case law. Traditionally, the ability to hold a managed care entity responsible for its actions has been hampered by a strict interpretation of the preemption clauses of ERISA but as the Supreme Court's jurisprudence has evolved and loosened, several federal courts have allowed suits against managed care companies to go forward. Conflict among the federal circuits has arisen and the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to two cases from Texas in order to clarify ERISA preemption. Mr. Trueman discusses the future of ERISA preemption in light of these decisions.     

论共有人的优先购买权

共有人的优先购买权在性质上为一种形成权,仅仅适用于按份共有人向共有人之外的人转让其份额(应有部分)的场合中,但不适用于建筑物区分所有权制度中的共有领域.同等条件包含价款条件相同、价款支付的方式、受让人的信用状况及是否提供担保等因素.优先购买权的行使,可发生转让人和行使优先购买权的共有人之间当然成立转让合同、类推适用物权法关于善意取得的规定等效果.共有人的优先购买权与承租人的优先购买权仅仅在共有物实行补偿分割、共有物整体转归某共有人的情况下竞存.     

从效率的角度看优先购买权的几个问题

优先购买权的价值基础在于对效率的促进,主要表现为财产权移转后调整成本或协商成本的降低;从效率的角度观察,承租人的优先购买权应优于共有人的优先购买权,此时既可以节省协商成本,又不减少生产的诱因;为了更好地实现优先购买权的立法目的,其范围应扩大至周围地所有人。     

Preserving the Copyright Balance: Statutory and Constitutional Preemption of Contract-Based Claims

Some copyright owners in the digital age have turned from copyright to contract law to protect their intellectual property, employing licensing agreements that override fair use and other public interest safeguards. State laws or common law claims that conflict with general copyright policy may be preempted through application of Section 301 of the Copyright Act or through general Supremacy Clause preemption. This article examines the role of preemption in protecting the public interest against attempts to circumvent the copyright law through such means. After examining the relationship between copyright and contract law, the article reviews the case law regarding statutory preemption and Supremacy Clause preemption of contract-based claims. It concludes that application of Section 301 preemption is not sufficient to protect longstanding principles in copyright law that are at risk from the increased use of contracts to displace default copyright rules. The article calls for the courts to return to Supremacy Clause preemption to prevent the degradation of important public interest safeguards in the copyright law.     

Considerations in Medicare reform: the impact of Medicare preemption on state laws

This article explores the key issues involved in understanding the impact of Medicare preemption on state laws affecting the federal purchase of managed care products, as a consideration in future Medicare reform. Author Commander Jackonis argues that any further Medicare reform must address the impact of federal preemption on quality and quantity of care purchased in order to ensure the existence of a market of product providers, as well as to ensure protection of patient rights and benefits.     

Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix

For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.     

中国古代不动产优先购买权制度研究

以亲、邻优先权为核心的中国古代不动产优先购买权 ,滥觞于中唐 ,于宋、元形成制度 ,至明、清则融于交易习惯和家法族规。该项制度的产生 ,主要是受中国古代社会注重维护宗法家族利益精神的影响 ,也与维护乡党利益、处理相邻关系及其些赋役征发的法例和习惯等因素有关。该项制度与中国古代国情基本相适应 ,具有一定的合理性。     

Does the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 create a hole in ERISA preemption?

ERISA's board preemption provision has survived many challenges to its scope and effect. Now it may have succumbed in the face of a few statements tucked into the legislative history of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Language in the legislative history presents the view that the Act was meant to overturn ERISA preemption of state family and medical leave laws. The text of the FMLA contains no corroborating language to support that view. However, at least one court found the statements in the legislative history to be persuasive and ruled that under the FMLA, ERISA does not preempt state family and medical leave laws that regulate ERISA plans. If other courts follow that decision, there will be great implications to employee benefit plan regulation and administration. This article explores the court's decision and the relationship between the FMLA and ERISA preemption.     

"An apparently irrational distinction": a suggestion for using equal protection arguments to overcome conflicts in ERISA preemption

ERISA's conflicting goals of providing national treatment of employee pension plans, while simultaneously preserving the rights of states to regulate insurance has resulted in a chaotic preemption quagmire. Unequal, unjustified, and irreconcilable treatment of benefit plans premised upon whether they are "self-funded" or "insured" results in legal distinctions that bear little semblance to the reality of today's healthcare funding mechanisms. The author provides an overview of the legal and practical problems inherent in the current ERISA preemption analysis, and proposes a novel equal protection solution.     

What is an employee benefit plan?: ERISA preemption of "any willing provider" laws after Pegram

This note considers the implications of a recent Supreme Court decision, Pegram v. Herdrich, for preemption of state laws under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Though Pegram dealt with a fiduciary liability question, and not preemption specifically, the Court in arriving at its decision laid out a definition of the word "loan"--a word that is used in both the fiduciary liability section of ERISA and the preemption section. The Court's definition focuses upon the relationship between the managed care organization and the employer that hires it. The definition, however, excludes from the meaning of "plan" the relationship between the managed care organization and the health care providers it hires. Thus, this Note argues that according to Pegram, state laws that regulate the relationship between managed care organizations and health care providers, such as "any willing provider" laws, should not be preempted by ERISA.