A Study On The Scope Of Application Of Article 3 Of Judicial Interpretation Of Sale And Purchase Contract

Article 3 of judicial interpretation on the application of law over sales contractsis definedto interpretation forthe opposite situation of Article 132 of contract law at the first place, and it is also applied for future contract. China has yet to admit burden act and the act of disposition principle of distinction, and the contract for the sale of judicial interpretation of law rank below the legal, it cannot change "contract law" Article 51 of the provisions on the validity of unauthorized disposition contract. Therefore, contract for the sale of judicial interpretation the third one, instead of the validity of unauthorized disposition contract provisions, its scope of application shall be in addition to the right to dispose of the contract the seller is not ownership or disposition of the case:the mortgagor without the mortgagee agreed to sell collateral, common sold a total of property, ownership reservation contract and future contract. The sale contract judicial interpretation of article three characteristics that are applicable to the seller at the time of the signing of the contract underlying does not enjoy the ownership or disposition, with human kindness and paid contract. In specific situations:first, a common situation, discusses a couple of common and common heritage, partnership common housing, resettlement and relocation of the joint fourth case the seller no ownership or disposition of debiting contract for the sale of Article 3 of the application. Second, the mortgagor without the mortgagee agreed to transfer the mortgaged property, as in the case of the in real estate mortgage has been registered, the mortgagor and the buyer agreed to lift the real estate mortgage apply to contract for the sale of judicial interpretation of Article 3 in. In the chattel mortgage has registration, buyers who signed the contract knew the chattels a mortgage right does not apply to contract for the sale of judicial interpretation of Article 3, but good buy and mortgage commitment to lift mortgage except by the. At the time of chattel mortgage unregistered, buy be made the subject matter without the burden of ownership, does not apply contract for the sale of judicial interpretation of Article 3. Third, in the retention of title in the contract, when special movable property in the subject matter, is divided into two kinds of situations:standard has the registration of the transfer to the buyer, then the buyer without betraying the subject matter to a third person does not belong to the unauthorized disposition, for the sale contract judicial interpretation of Article 3; the subject matter does not transfer registration to the buyer. At this time, the buyer without betraying the standard substance of unauthorized disposition. When the subject matter is non special chattel, buyer has the right to possession of appearance, in order to protect the third party acting in good faith transaction security, contract for the sale judicial interpretation Article 3. Fourth, the future contract of the subject matter does not exist, but there is divided into ownerless things and there but belong to others. When the object does not exist, buyers should be the underlying state aware; the subject matter exists but is ownerless, the contract should not belong to the impossibility; subject matter exists but is the property of others, should with the contract for the sale of unauthorized disposition to make a distinction. When the seller was unable to obtain the subject of ownership or disposition, buyers were able to contract for the sale of judicial interpretation the third request betray a person to assume responsibility.