The Practice Value And Legislative Design On The Acquisitive Prescription

Just issued the "PRC Property Rights Law" does not require prescription system, many reasons. either that the system was not realistic necessity. By comparison with the analysis method was used to obtain the historical origins of limitations, the system functions, the value of practice. Elements aspects of a comprehensive study sought to achieve a more reasonable limitation legislation regulating system to the benefit of China's Civil Code legislation.The full Papers of more than about 20,000 words, with the exception of the introduction and conclusion, a total of three parts. First made in the introduction of aging historical origins of the concept of History. This article first part focused on the limitations of the prescription system made the system functional and practical values. Made time for the system functions, in addition to the traditional view of this limitation is made to determine the ownership of property. scheduled ending disputes, to promote the best use, and maintain social order and the security of transactions is conducive to the collection of evidence and judgment, and the timely resolution of disputes and other functions. Practice also cited a large number of cases to prove that the system of justice in our country at this stage still exists. In this article some of the creative elements in the property to the public to effect change in the mode of access to real time system significance. This means that changes in the legislation of the right, has made prescription system to determine property rights. reduce the value of credit process. Expressed in the meaning of legislation, define property rights is very important and complicated process, and made aging system This will to some extent greatly shorten the chain of credit, reduce the credit process.This article is the second part of the main demonstration, made from the root of the time to discuss its legislative system design. Aging and the elimination of aging including access to prescription system. Extinctive prescription is right to seek to eliminate the reasons, and the prescription is the right approach. The two have different functions and different conditions of the separate systems, may also be linked to specific circumstances. In accordance with the now dominant view of limitations does not eliminate the rights of its own entity. This will bring about the elimination of aging successfully, you do not get the right person in possession of the subject matter; Despite being interpreted as a real person still enjoy entities rights, but the right of limitations on the right to request complete. she could not to exercise, so there is nothing in this material on the exercise of the fundamental right to practice. So, the emergence of the right person in possession and possession of the subject matter is not really the right person does not have the right to occupy the embarrassing subject matter Bush situation. Possession of the law to protect the right people to play with the best value, achieved through the completion time to give people the right to ownership or possession of his property, to complement each other in practice. But when the two spent occurred in the same subject matter, it may occur due to differences in their respective law during the conflict. Specific features : First, it made the eradication of time spent to complete unfinished rights arising out of touch with the object. This is contrary to the purposes of aging; Aging has been completed and the second is made of limitations has not yet expired when the conflict. To solve the two conflicts, many of the programs designed both to try to resolve its representative. The first is to unify the two during the second, the limitation period starting point would be to establish the basis for the eradication of aging.This paper considers that to avoid linking the two spent some slack, Two designs will be spent during the same length of the right to solve the vacuum still can not eliminate the above-mentioned gap During the length of the reunification of the two apparently confused the prescription system and eliminate the distinction between prescription system. Since we have two different time points during the run, made from the person in possession of limitations period began to run goodwill flawless possession. and the elimination of the period of limitation in our existing law, since the person knows or should know that their rights have been infringed upon commences. Besides, if they can be exactly the same period, the eradication of limitations exist in name only. The only limitation is that really made the system. Therefore, the reunification of the two during the practice undesirable. Be made on the basis of time spent on the eradication of the system design itself is still obvious flaws : First, The technology will be a great encouragement to take legislative obligations do not fulfill their obligations and encroached on private property. Secondly, the right to occupy this technology will increase the cost of goodwill. Third, the expiry date for the eradication of Aging finds itself in the higher technical requirements. Fourth, technology tends to adopt the legislation and the rights of the original occupiers of disputes, increasing evidence, increased litigation costs. Aging was established with the original purpose of the system goes achieved.To resolve this conflict, this way of thinking is destroying the effectiveness of the eradication of entities when property. After eliminating the right time to eliminate not only the right but also won the right to eliminate physical, the most direct consequences. The subject matter begins with the main objects into bona vacantia. Although it did not say that people have no right to occupy property directly, but in reality it can be accounted for first immediate right. This approach avoids the limitations so that the person in possession was obtained through a variety of property. But the initiative was based on a malicious person in possession of the title that it is completely unacceptable. This paper is designed to take the reasons for such a system.Extinctive prescription entities to destroy property, it seems to be an extremely naive and have no legal knowledge whimsical turns. Because of the long-lasting nature and the absolute right to exercise the most fundamental right features. This should be the most basic, an unshakable knowledge of the law. Of course, eliminating time is not right to destroy any entity with a legal basis for the applicable conditions. First, only in subject matter from the original is not actively exercise its right to recover possession of human rights and the situation can be applied. Secondly, the modern law is a reasonable limitation of ownership for the regular choice of system. Of course, even aging can be eliminated from the right perspective entity can be set up to eliminate the need for further research on the many other issues. if applicable conditions.The third part of the main application of this chapter of history, obtained from the study of aging more typical of legislation combined with China's specific conditions. China's future design limitations made the "Civil Code" Elements. Elements should be the main prescription : First, it occupies. Which should be strictly limited to possession. This article possession for independence, peace and openly share. As to whether the person in possession of goodwill? From a legal operational perspective, we must not limit the person in possession of goodwill and maliciously made possession of limitations may also occur. However, possession of goodwill should set a shorter time period, and to extend the period of limitation provides malicious possession. Secondly, the share should go through the statutory period. Also be a corresponding increase in the prescription interruption, suspension, to adapt to the changes, as described in the text before the expiry of the limitation of this model as a prescription starting point.