The Difference Between The Limitation Of Action And Scheduled Period And Its Application

The difference between the imitation of action and scheduled periodis not so explicit in our existing civil law theory.And the reason liesbehind it is that the existing civil law theory about the differencebetween them has not realized the nature of them. Time is the form of theexistence.The time in civil law should be the form of juristic fact incivil law,and can not be independently regarded as the juristic fact. Thetheory of civil law should distinguish between the time in civil law anda general sense of time.The time in civil law is generally regarded asthe juristic fact,and is divided into date and term.But suchclassification is just based on the concept of a general sense of timein fact.The concept of the date and term in civil law does not exist inour theory,which resulting the fact that the essential difference betweenthe imitation of action and scheduled period has not been realized.Thethesis points out that if we acknowledge that the time in civil law isthe form of the juristic fact,we should also admit the concept of the dateand term in civil law.The juristic fact can be divided into one-time roleof legal facts and continuity of legal facts.Consequently,the natural fact,which belongs to the juristic fact,can also be divided into thestatus and the incident as a result of application of suchclassification.The date and term in civil law should also be the form ofsuch different kind of juristic fact.Based on such concept,we can betterunderstand two different kinds of time period:one is generally regardedas the duration of the right of which the beginning point and the end pointis actually the form of incident;the other is actually the form ofstatus.Scheduled period belongs to the former,and the imitation of actionbelongs to the latter.This thesis points out the essential differencebetween them,and the existing theories about the specific distinctionstandard between them are all the reflection of it.Besides,in order tohighlight the practical value of this theory,the thesis then analyze thespecific provisions in our civil law.Apart from the introduction and the conclusion, the thesis consistsof three chapters.The first chapter points out the defects of the existingtheory, and we should distinguish the time in civil law and the generalsense of time.The theoretical basis of this distinction lies inunderstanding the nature of the the time in civil law.The second chapterbased on Chapter1puts forward the essential difference betweenthem,which comes from the amendment to one existing theory. And based onthe essential distinction, this thesis further analyzes other theories.The third chapter apply this distinction to a concrete analysis ofspecific provisions of the existing law on time, and the dispute on thesespecific provisions were also analyzed.