A Study On The Rationality Of The Dai Nationality 's Lost Property

Almost everyone has the experience of losing property. It is closely related to people’s life how to handle the lost property and many countries and regions have their legislations on the system of lost property. The Dai minority, living in Yunnan Province of China, also has its own rules of lost property, and these rules are still plays a role in the Dai society today.The system of lost property is a kind of the systems of the ownership changing in the modern civil law. The system of lost property mainly includes the obligations and rights of the finder. In accordance with many national or region legislations,the finder’s obligation conclude reporting obligation, notification obligation, transferring obligation, obligation of publishing an announcement, custodial obligation,obligation of return; and the finder’s rights conclude reimbursing claim right, reward request right, lien and the ownership to the lost-and-found object in certain conditions.There are differences between the Dai minority’s laws and the legislations in some other countries or regions by comparison.The main differences are as follows:firstly the position of the system of lost property blurred in the Dai minority’s laws,secondly the Dai minority’s laws conferred reward request right, lien and the ownership right of the lost-and-found object to the finder in certain conditions but did not grant the reimbursing claim right to the finder. Despite these differences,the spirit of the Dai minority’s laws is similar to the spirit of other countries’ or regions’laws because they also attached great importance to the finders’rights.The spirit of the Dai minority’s laws is different with China’s central legislation.China’s central legislation ignore the finders’ rights,such as doesn’t conferred reward request right, lien and the ownership of the lost-and-found object to the finder in certain conditions.By using the method of value analysis, social analysis and other research methods,we can find the Dai minority’s laws have some defects, such as not granting the reimbursing claim right to the finder. But it has much rationality, such as conferring reward request right, lien and the ownership to the finder in certain conditions.These conclusions are available from ethics,economics,sociology, and have demonstrated in the judicial practice. From the view of ethics,there is the relative quantity law of human ethical behavior types.Because human’s ethical behavior seems the end of benefiting oneself must be more than the end of benefiting others, it is reasonable that the Dai minority’s laws conferred reward request right, lien and the ownership rights to the finder in certain conditions and it is not reasonable that the Dai minority’s laws did not grant the reimbursing claim right to the finder. From the point of view of economics, it is not reasonable to apply the original ownership rule in any case.It is reasonable to apply the comparison of rules in general case and to apple the finders-keepers rule in the case that the lost property’s value is smaller and no person claim the lost property. This conclusion is also supported by the economic expectation theory. From a sociological point of view, it is also supported by Homans’s social exchange theory and the Chinese traditional exchange concept "Bao".In addition, from the judicial practice effect, it is reasonable to confer reward request right, lien and the ownership rights to the finder.China’s central legislation denied the ownership to the lost-and-found object in certain conditions and also denied the finders’ reward request right based on a misreading of the"not pocket the property one pick up".This rule obstacles person’s positive to report and return the lost-and-found object.That is the main reason for more and more lower returning rate in our country.Our country should establish a rational system of lost property which can match to the relevant system on the basis of Real Right Law of the People s Republic of China.