Research On Non-causation Principle In Action Of Negotiable Instrument

As a fundamental principle in Negotiable Instrument Law, non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument plays a vital role in promoting circulation and protection of transaction security. Among academic circles, it still lacks in-depth study in this field. A series of problems are needed to be clarified, such as the definition of non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument, the distinction between non-causation principle in action of negotiable instrument and its related concepts as well as its theoretical fundation, legal value and scope of validity,etc. The Negotiable Instrument Law of our country holds an extremely ambiguous attitude towards the non-causation principle which makes difficulties in exerting the function of negotiable instrument and juridical practice. According to different negotiable instrument theories, their connotation, scope of validity varies greatly. By introducing the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior, the explanation of problems related to negotiable instrument will be more reasonable, advantageous as well as persuasive. Therefore, non-causality principle is applied to the thesis, basing on theories of negotiable instrument, elucidating the connotation of non-causation principle and the scope of vality. And meanwhile, the thesis conducted a prospective study on the brand-new forms of negotiable instrument problems like "dual non-right counterplea"and "subsequent party counterplea",etc.The thesis consists of four chapters.Chapter One discussed the relation between non-causation principle and theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior. According to different negotiable instrument theories, the connotation, scope of validity,etc.defers considerably. Thus, the study of non-causation of negotiable instrument behaviour should seek its theoretical foundation from negotiable instrument theories. Firstly, the chapter analyzed their advantages and disadvantages respectively. However, comparatively speaking, the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior elucidated problems related with negotiable instrument is more rational, protecting the security of negotiable instrument circulation. Secondly, this chapter exposed the weakness of traditional two phases theory. It proved that right transfer behavior also existed in the acceptance and guaranty of negotiable instrument and the the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior should be brought into force. The last part of the chapter focused on the interactive effects of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument and related theories. Based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior, negotiable instrument behavior is composed by debt burden behavior and right transfer behavior.The former is non-cause behavior and the latter is causal behavior.Chapter Two discussed the connotation of non-causation principle based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior. The relation between bill relationship and bill cause is a basic points of great significance in theories of negotiable instrument law, consisting of non-causality constitution vs.causality constitution. The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument based on monism of action of negotiable instrument has various of usages which aroused great confusion in application. On the contrary, through introducing the theories of dualism of action of negotiable instrument, the thesis seperated assumed liability and right transfer behavior regarding former as non-causality action vs. the latter as causality action, which plays a key role in understanding negotiable instrument systems.The independence principle of action on negotiable instrument is a problem related with flaws of assumed liability; the Bona Fide Acquisition closely linked with defects of right transfer behavior; counterpleare restriction related with defects of legal relationship besides the negotiable instrument rather than flawless negotiable instrument behavior; the non-causation principle of debt burden behavior indicates that it will not be affected by the legal behaviors besides the negotiable instrument. The debt burden behavior should compose of the form items and substantive items, while the signer with the right on negotiable instrument as well as capacity of negotiable instrument behavior should also have his expression of intention without flaw. This chapter focused on examples of "subsequent party counterplea" and "dual non-right counterplea", which proved that the cause theory of right transfer behavior of negotiable instrument is more persuasive than the traditional power abuse theory under the category of non-causation negotiable instrument theory.Chapter Three defined the validity scope of non-causation principle based on the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior. The validity of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior between two parties mainly presented in the form of inversion of onus probandi; while for indirect involved parties, personal counterplea restriction system is executed. Personal counterplea characterized by human nature and individuality, basing on non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior. Due to different theories of the field, the scopes of personal counterplea vary considerably. According to non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior, causation flaw counterplea refers to non-right counterplea, applying for counterplea restriction, which will come up with difficulties in new cases like "subsequent party counterplea" and "dual non-right counterplea" and so on. Based on the the theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior, causal relationship flaw counterplea which belongs to non-right counterplea is inapplicable to counterplea restriction system. The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior under two phases seperated non-right counterplea from traditional personal counterplea, narrowing down its appliable scope, which provides valid theoretical elucidation for new cases like "dual non-right counterplea" and "subsequent party counterplea",etc. And it clarified the relationship among similar systems like restriction of personal counterplea, independent principle of negotiable instrument behavior as well as the acquire in good faith. All of the above three systems are designed to protect the obtainer, whereas their appliable situations are quite different. From the perspective of negotiable instrument counterplea, the independent principle of negotiable instrument behavior is related to res counterplea; the acquire in good faith is relevant to non-right counterplea; personal counterplea closely linked with personal counterplea in narrow sense.Chapter Four investigated the exceptions of non-causation principle from the perspective of theory of two phases of negotiable instrument behavior. The non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior indeed promoted the circulation of negotiable instrument. However, if it is applied unconditionally, it would violate the its original aims. The validity of non-causation principle of negotiable instrument behavior mainly presented as personal counterplea restriction, while obtainer acquire the negotiable instrument out of bad faith or without value, there is no restriction on counterplea. In addition, exceptions of non-causation principle also reflected in following aspects as the counterplea situation of involved parties, non-right counterplea and special endorsement,etc. This chapter verified exceptional situations of various negotiable instruments through case analysis. In section 1, the author discussed non-right counterplea. In accordance with traditional cause theory of negotiable instrument behavior, scholars used to protesting against the plea of holder for illegal profit counterplea, bad faith counterplea power abuse counterplea on the premise of counterplea individuality. Nevertheless, the cause theory of right transfer behavior based on the creation theory regards cause relationship flaws as non-right counterplea, which sounds more appropriate and consistent with the theory. Section 2 discussed non-consideration counterplea.Validity of non-consideration indicate the exception of personal counterplea. Additionally, our country should use some relevant articles in Negotiable Instrument Law of Anglo-American law system for reference, regarding consideration as constitute items of the acquire in good faith. Section 3 elucidated bad faith counterplea and counterplea against the party with good faith intervention.under the circumstance of the holder with subjective bad faith, negotiable instruments right transfer behavior has its flaw. Thus, it does not coincide with appliable condition of counterplea restriction, nor is protected by the Bona Fide Acquisition system. As for the connotation of bad faith, the broadest sense of comprehension was adopted in Negotiable Instrument Law of our country. By following the international trend of Negotiable Instrument Law, one should regard "whether it did harm to the debtor with intention" as a standard to judge the bad faith. The last section discussed counterplea problems relating to endorsement of overdue bill, return endorsement and endorsement be mandate,etc.