| Abstract is one of the characteristics in German law, In each of the Negotiable Instruments Law, or the textbook will have appearance on these words, this description of notes are not generally recognized, no doubt as a result of the soul of the modern instrument is the instrument law theory .The cornerstone of the policy-oriented legislators choice. None of the earliest due to the existence in Germany, Mr. Savigye created the concept of freedom and the oretical, in Germany, Department of the unique mode of thinking.This essay is divided to five chapters. The contents are as following:Chapter I, the early period of abstract of Negotiable Instruments Law in German. First of all, the history of this chapter from the perspective of the doctrine of the early German instrument law. Theory of primitive instruments has undergone "personal restrict", " Negotiable Instruments restrict", theory, the primitive instruments of these historical changes in phase and reflects the thinking of German scholars of the changes in legislation. From the contents of this section, we can see, there is no theory of the formation from the German Negotiable Instruments Law, before the aroused controversy, and the last established is a German scholar who has undergone repeated scrutiny, so worthy of the note is not instrument law in Germany where the charm is. The second, the legislative history from the perspective of an analysis with a result for the selection of the Negotiable Instruments Law in Germany in 1848, mainly of its historical background was as well as a result of the test of the embodiment in law. These elements for the instrument in Germany in 1874 with the final result of the legislative policy choice to make a great contribution. The third, the instrument law in Germany in 1874 was the from the formation without the need for analysis, from the perspective of the legislative history of that instrument to the substantive law to defend restrictions on the transfer process, and Roman law of Germany notes Bill all along have had an important impact. Content from this chapter we can see from the discussion of Prussia to the final draft of the Negotiable Instruments Law in 1848 the implementation of Germany has experienced a lot of discussion of amendments to the scholars put forward their own proposal to establish the direction of the paper without reason, independent choice of law. Early Mr. Einert, Mr.Liebe, Mr. President and made Th?l contribution should not be underestimated, it is in their thoughts make of today's instrument law theory has become more abundant.ChapterII, The author considers that the thought process of traditional counterplea theory is: firstly, it classifies the negotiable instrument counterplea into rescounterplea and person counterplea basing on the different defiance scope and prescribes that the rescounterplea is the counterplea which debtor confronts all debates and the person counterplea is the counterplea which debtor confronts certain debate. Afterwards, under the direction of ideal of promoting the circulation of negotiable instrument, it decides the defense scope of certain kind of counterplea through the comparing and scaling the benefits between debtee and debtor. Finally, it comes under each counterplea into corresponding sort. Because the traditional counterplea theory solves the core question of negotiable instrument counterplea----restriction of counterplea, it has the analogous advantage comparing with other class methods. But traditional counterplea theory resolves the question which is specific using the classification before classification, so it doesn't react in deciding the legal effect of negotiable instrument counterplea. Furthermore the problem that a certain counterplea is rescounterplea or person counterplea is not determined basing on advanced theory but judged by the unclad benefit scale which is divorced from the theoretic frame. So the concept of rescounterplea and person counterplea has no meaning substantially. In addition, it is indecent to consider the whole negotiable instrument counterplea using the contrast between rescounterplea and person counterplea. This chapter first instrument from Germany in 1848 on the Law of Bills of inspiration about the modern display of paper claims and causes of claims identity thinking, reveal the legislative process of "ideological confrontation of the Negotiable Instruments Law," produced by the instrument without Re-understanding of it, and precisely because of liquidity, Germany and France eventually replace the French law, the formation of the current civil law and common law. Secondly, without a result of the German doctrine of old and new instruments have had a significant impact, paper-free sexual behavior to build a paper-free due to the basis of theory. The main instruments of the old doctrine of the modern German Connaught into a contract said that it is necessary that the book contract, notes that the behavior should be said that the amount of bound separately, such as the introduction; the next, but also notes the new theory of modern Germany that said lease and unilateral acts that all the doctrine contained in the detailed analysis and presentation of the theory out of the study the relationship between various types of legal instruments play an important role. Once again, Germany is not the paper on the civil law countries and played an important, positive impact. Either from the instrument's external validity of acts of non-sexual interpretation of the concept and principles, or from the bills of their own acts of contents - internal defense mechanism to explain the concept and not a result of the principle can not be separated from non-sexual purposes the founder of the theory. And at this stage, the international legislative instruments used in Germany is not the theory of thinking, then success instrument law system today, one of the two instrument law system in Geneva.Chapter III, the German instrument law is not the theory of sublimation in the Civil Law. The concept is not a concept from the civil law, but no paper is a result of the civil law concept and different, and not because of bills and the "without reason" concept in the development of the field notes. First of all, this chapter is not law governing negotiable instruments from Germany and China and France on the basis of the talk about the bills without a clear result of the civil law on the basis of comparative analysis of property rights in Germany and in Germany there are no papers without reason, and on the other theory. Secondly, the statement of the German Law of Bills in the delivery of the lease. Delivery of the contractual agreement between the independent claims and causes of debt instruments between the process of debt instruments (the reasons) is not a cause of relationship, but the delivery of a desired, but in the delivery of debt instruments have a non-consensual sex, is the instrument the delivery took place with the separation of civil law. Thirdly, non-property rights violations are not due to considerations of legislative policy and not because of it, it is a product of logic, an abstract theory is the early history of the Roman Law scholars at the request of payment for finishing the v. conclusions, rather than the logic of the theory of property rights acts of the conclusions, nor the so-called transaction-based security policies on the protection of the law's purpose. Because of this, produced a paper delivered on the interpretation of the Civil Code, while at the same time Germany is not the theory of paper produced on the basis of civil law based on the sublimation.Chapter IV, non-instrument law in Germany is because of the new location. First of all, from the contemporary German instrument law is not an effect of the analytic theory, discusses the non-instrument law in Germany because of the scope of the defense to cut off and non-sexual relationship without sexual and non-debt instruments from the property, irreplaceability and cut off issues such as defense; Secondly, the statement of the "bills of exchange promissory notes German law," Article 17 Review. In the "bill of exchange promissory notes German law," Article 17 and Article 16, paragraph 2, respectively, without reason, as the embodiment of the concept of emergence in the law, the Geneva Law of Bills in the protection of a unified concept of the holder are also provided in articles 17 and the provisions of Article 16. Notes for a creditor with a direct relationship between the defense to cut off the paper claims, in addition to the abstract and non-dependent, as well as a third legal standards. Is the guarantee for the defense to cut off - "Promissory Notes Bills of Exchange Act in Germany," second paragraph of Article 16 provides that instruments which guarantee the liquidity of extraordinary. Including access to sexual and goodwill, for malicious defense of limitations and because of the relatively non-recognition of such content. We know from modern Germany is not the theory of the view that, first, recognize the claims and causes of the paper claims process between the instruments (the reasons) the existence of desired delivery. Secondly, although the instruments and the relationship between the delivery of a desired without reason, but the claims and causes of the relationship between the non-dependent has dependents. Thirdly, in the "bill of exchange promissory notes German law," Article 17's defense, although the lack of satisfactory delivery, that is expected by the lack of legal integrity. Due to the lack of meaning from it to indicate fraud, compelling. And the reasons for the lack of claims will become a problem, but the former defense of unjust enrichment to the right to claim for the media to be instruments of the confrontation, which is the basis of satisfactory delivery was allowed in the forums can be started by the paper against the claims. The fourth, the "Promissory Notes Bills of Exchange Act in Germany," Article 17 is excluded from the scope of the defense, and absolute, not based on non-sexual, nor is it based on the followers of non-attachment, malicious defense is a defense of those who direct a .Chapter V, non-sexual about the international impact. Germany is not the theory notes the impact is far-reaching, in the International Convention on the Law of Bills, the Bills acts without reason, without exception, also was recognized. With regard to the unity of the international instrument law, has undergone three stages of development, that is, a unified instrument law Hague stage, the Geneva phase of a unified instrument law and the United Nations International Law of Bills phase. The International Convention in The Hague, the Geneva Convention as well as the unification of bills of exchange promissory notes, "United Nations Commission on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes," there are no manifestation of sexual. First of all, the chapter on non-sexual in the "Hague Convention" in a reflection of the principal legal systems of the three instrument law in their respective role to play in the field, the 20th century, the requirements of trade flows is the unification of the three voucher system, in 1910 and 1912 years of the Hague Conference to try. Secondly, the statements by the German non-paper of the "Geneva unified instrument law" is embodied in the Geneva Convention on the reunification of the value of bills of exchange promissory notes is that it no longer developed by the Hague as a Model Law on Negotiable Instruments Law, as there is, but to do real national legislation is applied to practice. Note once again that Germany is no sex in the "United Nations Commission on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes" in the manifestation of. Time as the most intuitive, "United Nations Commission on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes," is characterized by the separatists to take in the Bills of Exchange Act and check the relationship between law, embodies the style characteristics of the Geneva Conventions; set up in the chapter, the abolition of a distinction between the types of instruments chapter-based settings, the provisions of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes together, the difference between technology and language technology to replace the quasi-rule, reflects the legislative instrument on the United States to absorb technology; in the chapters set in order to flow the right order and the responsibility of the parties logical structure of the dual basis of arrangements, from the formal point of view with the United States Commercial Code, "commercial securities" for a similar, but from the content analysis, also to absorb the way of the Geneva Uniform Law. Strictly on the Law of Bills of grasp. These are provided free because of space, in the form of paper, essentially adopted the Convention on the principle of common law, the Convention has a certain degree of flexibility. Bearer of good protection. Convention on the Protection of the Rights of the holders of the liquidity to uphold the principle of the protection methods used in practice is civil law and common law methods of compromise, that is, holders of a simple and "protected holder" the difference between treatment to protect them. Because of the non-paper, as has always been the center of Legal Studies paper, therefore, focus on theory without reason scholars have their own views, which is representative for debate and there are no result and no result of the relative and the absolute nature of the discussion. The author notes no taste because of the German research is not a one-emergence of this theory but the core of the concept of carrying instrument law, the paper notes for free by the German study is a preliminary attempt, I am looking forward to the deepening of German research to be helpful.
|
PDF Full Text Request