无权处分场合买卖合同的效力与权利瑕疵担保

《民法典》第597条第1款的主要规范目的是,无权处分不影响买卖合同的效力。只要承认权利人的追认会产生所有权变动的效果,就适宜承认存在效力未定的处分行为。区分负担行为和处分行为,在解释论上具有可取之处。在传统债法上,无权处分致使给付不能的,存在适用债务不履行责任抑或权利瑕疵担保责任的争论,两方面规定在构成要件上有实质区别。我国《民法典》合同编实行救济进路,第三人享有所有权、抵押权等权利致使所有权不能转移的,当事人可以选择适用《民法典》第597条第1款或第612条,两者在违约责任的构成要件和效果上并无实质区别。《民法典》第612条中规定的第三人“享有权利”文义范围较窄,应当对其进行目的论扩张,将第三人“过去享有权利”且主张权利的一些情形纳入其中;即使买受人构成善意取得,仍可认定出卖人违反权利瑕疵担保义务。

The Effectiveness of Sales Contract in the Case of Unauthorized Disposition and the Warranty against Defects in Title

The main purpose of Article 597(1)of the Chinese Civil Code is that unauthorized disposition does not affect the effectiveness of the contract for sales.As long as it is recognized that the ratification of the owner will cause ownership transference,it is appropriate to recognize the existence of an independent disposition behavior with undetermined effectiveness.The distinction between burden behavior and disposition behavior has merits in explanatory theory.In the traditional debt law,if there is no right to disposition and the performance is impossible,there is a dispute about whether the liability for nonperformance or the liability for defects in title shall be applied.These two rules have substantial differences in their constituent elements.The Chinese Civil Code,however,adopts the so-called“remedy approach”in contract law.If a third party enjoys ownership,mortgage rights or other rights,and the ownership cannot be transferred correspondingly,the aggrieved party may choose to apply Article 597(1)or Article 612.There is no substantial difference between these two rules in respect of the constituent elements and effects of liability for breach of contract.The term“enjoys rights”in Article 612 has a relatively narrow literal scope,and it should be teleologically expanded to include some situations in which a third person“enjoyed rights”in the past and claims rights;even if the buyer constitutes a good faith acquisition,the seller can still be found to have breached the warranty against defects in title.