或有期间三论

或有期间研究的一个必然逻辑起点就是论证或有期间真伪问题。从制度的本源上展开分析,或有期间与诉讼时效和除斥期间具有本质上的差异,乃为独立存在的期间制度。然存在或有期间却并非当然具有存在之必要,还需要论证或有期间具有存在的合理性、必要性。或有期间应当是具有独特存在价值之制度,即能够通过限制处于比较优势地位的一方当事人获得或行使特定的权利,结束权利所处的不确定状态,从而妥当地均衡双方当事人之间权利义务关系。或有期间制度的构建则应当遵循或有期间内在价值的指导,着眼于"严格性"的基本定位,同时尊重当事人意思自治,兼顾公平,以安排或有期间基本制度的具体内容。或有期间制度的基本规定应当与诉讼时效和除斥期间并列规定于我国未来民法典期间制度一章节之中。

Three Arguments on Contingency Period

The logical starting point on the research of contingency period is to prove the authenticity. Analyzing from the origin of the system, there is an essential difference between contingency period and limi-tation of action and scheduled period, which shows contingency an independent existing period of the system. While the existence of such a period could not be taken for granted, it is necessary to prove the rationality and necessity of existence. The existence of contingency period system has its unique value, namely through the restrictions in a comparative advantage in one of the parties to obtain or exercise certain rights thus over the uncertainty of rights, so as to properly balance the relationship of rights and obligations between the parties. Formation of the contingency period should follow the intrinsic value of the basic guidance, focusing on“stringency”, while respecting parties’ autonomy of will and fairness, consequently arrange the specific con-tents of contingency period. Basic provisions of contingency period shall be paralleled with the provisions of limitation of action and scheduled period in one of the chapters of the future civil code.