On The Separation Of Ideological Delivery And Good Faith Acquisition Of Movable Property

It is the protection of ownership and maintenance of transaction security that compose a pair of contradictory values civil law is facing, with the accession to the market economy. Whether allows the ideological delivery to apply to the good faith acquisition of movable property is not only one of its performances, but also the central issue this paper talks to. This article consists of three parts, which are introduction, main body and conclusion.Introduction searches the origins of the ideological delivery from the ancient Roman Law and Germanic Law, and describes the Indirect Possession which is its fundamental system of modern law. Because of the multi-layer indirect possession, the separation between the appearance of the ownership and the right itself is extended, and the probability of disposition with no dispositive power increases。ChapterⅠ, starting from the constituent elements, verifies whether the application can meet the logic in legal contexts. First, as a method of delivering movable property, ideological delivery can not be compatible with principles of changing property in our Property Law perfectly. Second, in view of the grafting the ideological delivery onto good faith acquisition from the logical point, ideological delivery encounter the internal exclusion of the specific terms in Property Law. The introduction of the ideological delivery expands the scope of the duty of care on the third party improperly, and disturbs the time standard in recognizing goodwill. What's more, how to determine the time when the change of title caused by the good faith acquisition happens becomes more difficult. Therefore, the logic of the fusion of both is not so smooth.Chapter II, from the legal effect, studies the conflict of the real values which arises from such application. Firstly, the good faith acquisition fulfilled by ideological delivery, not only brings about the general legal effect of changes of title, but also maintains original condition of possession, which leads that the title of the original rights holders is stolen very easy. So, the conflict of the original owner, non-entitled party and assignee is more complex and delicate. Second, good faith acquisition resulting from the ideological delivery breaks the balance of interests, which dose not meet the request of"One Property One Real Right principle"and"Publicity and Public Credibility principle", can not get the basic jurisprudential support of indirect possession, and can not be verified by the economic consideration about the access to and loss of the title. As a result, its application causes that the system value tilts irrationally.Chapter III, demonstrates and explains the necessity and significance of the separation between the two systems. The first part analyzes of different doctrines comparatively. Next, on the basis of difference of system sense between ideological delivery and good faith acquisition, indicates the instability hidden in the combination of both. Finally, given the value of the law itself, there is a fresh look at the interpretation and application of the rules of good faith acquisition.The main methods exerted on this paper are comparative study, historical research and legal analysis。At the end of the article, the conclusion is drawn as fallow: applying the ideological delivery to the good faith acquisition is as the response to the request of completeness of the legal formal logic firstly. However, in the side of the convergence of the norms, it is not so proper for the combination of both, and the distribution of interest is not so reasonable. Also, the natural values of both systems are so different. Thus, the law must separate one system from the other clearly and treats both carefully.