| Everyone lost items or pick up things in our daily life is normal, such a thing happens almost every day. A person be lost or object is very common phenomenon. So also shall handle the related issues also belong to one of the important issues of our society and our country legislation. Picked up the object to return lost property usually need to spend a lot of time and energy, sometimes even can not get the owner after find the owner saying thank you. In this case the object to find the owner and return the lost enthusiasm is greatly reduced, in order to avoid trouble, ignore lost things happen from time to tome. The result, with the purpose of the lost property legislation in our country at the same time run counter to the traditional virtues. Investigate its causes problems, mainly lies in the object compensation claims in our country, the absence of legislation. In our country’s legislation system, the object but lost-and-found objects can only be returned to the owner for the necessary fees or only in the case of owner issued for advertising in advance can enjoy compensation claims. Current legislation is required, however, object to inform, return, and properly kept lost property of obligations, if the lost property loss due to intentional misconduct or gross negligence, and bear the risk of compensation. But in contrast, law did not object compensation claim, this undoubtedly give object added more burden, at the same time for such object is an imbalance of rights and obligations. To be fair, this is why people are reluctant to turned over to the lost property, willing to turn a blind eye or to the existent key, is the ownership of the lost people why can not get effective guarantee of the root cause. In the existing legal provisions of the lost property system ignores the interests of the market economy condition object for appeal, and thus put forward to the behavior of the object does not accord with the actual improper legal requirements, to the credit of ethics to rise to the level of legal norms, is actually confuses the legal and moral boundaries, also ignore the lost balance of interests between man and object, not only conducive to stimulate return lost property of the object, but weakened the enthusiasm of its return lost property. Therefore run counter to the current lost property legislation purpose, is not conducive to protect the missing person’s property ownership. Excessive increase compulsory object, is not conducive to adjust the rights and duties in the relationship between object and the lost people. Current lost property processing system instead of prompting object returned to pick up the material, but picked up some object would rather turn a blind eye or possession of the picked up item. Along with our country for lost property of dealing with the relevant legal provisions of the regulations is simpler, the lost-and-found objects involved many supporting legal issues not rules, have the power of interpretation authority has also didn’t give him a reasonable explanation, the court is also acted in such courts.Therefore, the key to solve the problem is that how to build a scientific and reasonable system of lost property processing, standardize the object and the rights and duties in the relationship between lost people, deal with and solve the problem of the legal relations of the lost-and-found objects. The regulation of our country "general principles of the civil law" and judicial interpretation of the supreme people’s court and published the draft civil law of the National People’s Congress system to the lost-and-found objects is has a regulation, but the provision is simple, in practice it is difficult to reasonably adjust the lost-and-found objects produced by the complex legal relationship, at the same time, the rules on legal value judgment and choice are also questionable. Of our country "general principles of the civil law" regulation for object have the necessary fees, only have not provided such object their pay claim. It is obvious that the regulation already can not adapt to the development of modern relationship between lost property picked up. Its defect is: the law and ethics line is not clear, too much loss of rights protection and ignore to protect the interests of the object. In 2002 the National People’s Congress announced the law of the People’s Republic of China civil law(draft), yet the draft has not changed the deficiency of the general principles of the civil law, the effectiveness of the reward is only specified by advertising.Therefore, author thinks in the future, Chinese Civil Code shall clearly stipulate the finder’s right to request compensation. The finder’s right to request compensation is when he returned the property to the right holder, it is his right to require the right holder of the object to pay relative reimbursement. The ancient Chinese and most of the foreign legislation all clearly stipulate the finder’s right to request compensation. However, as far as our current legislation is concerned, the relative system has not been established. The code only made laws for the redemption claim of necessary expenses and reward promised by the right holder. So to say, this is a big disappointment of current Chinese legislation system and important reason for low return rate of lost property. This paper discussed request compensation problem confronting China from three parts.The whole paper includes three parts:Part one analyzes the legislation status quo of China and other countries in terms of compensation claim. There is no any clear provision about compensation claim in Chinese legislation system, only stating: “The holder of the promised a reward to find object, he should claim object, perform the obligation of reward.” The article stipulate explicitly that the finder has right to obtain remuneration, but it must be from the right holder willingly. This paper compares it to other countries’ regulation about compensation claim and remuneration standards. By taking legislation comparison as a basis, this paper will start its analysis in following parts.Part two discusses and analyzes the feasibility of compensation claim from three respects: morality, jurisprudence and comparison. First is moral analysis for the feasibility of compensation claim. After judicious reflection on traditional virtue of Returning lost money, we can find that those dissenting opinions are misusing our traditional virtue to take the behavior of compensation claim as inappropriate request. However, in fact, Returning lost money is not opposed to compensation claim. Therefore, it is nonsense to use Returning lost money as objections. The compensation claimed by the finder is his “labor income”, which is not against the virtue of Returning lost money. Today is an era with increasingly high social and time cost, compensation claim is the reimbursement for the finder’s effort and expenses. It is an stimulus for Returning lost money. Second, juris prudence analysis for the feasibility of compensation claim. During the development of Chinese civil rights, the scope of civil rights is expending. Therefore, under such situation, we should view opportunity discovery of citizens as a new method of obtaining new civil rights. The country should further confirm the legitimacy of such kind of opportunity income, and views it as one of property ownership right which is the effective supplement and broadening of Chinese citizens’ civil rights. Third, value analysis for the feasibility of compensation claim. The lost property system of current Chinese legislation system originally intends to develop the virtue of Returning lost money and strengthen socialist cultural and ethical construction. However, lack of compensation claim legislation leaves the mass lose their drive to return the lost property. Only relying on morality to restrict the mass’ behaviors obviously exceeds their ideological consciousness. Meanwhile, this opposites man’s nature of pursuing his own interest, easily leading to negative attitude towards return the lost property. Otherwise, if the finder will obtain his compensation after he performed the obligation of returning, this will balance the finder’s rights and obligations, protect the interest of both parties(the finder and the right holder), and stimulate citizens’ motivation with a perfect ending of increased returning rate. At last, by comparison, we can find that most countries from either anglo-american law systems or continental law system have detailed legislation system for compensation claim and protection of opportunity income. Them not only protects the interest of the right holder, but also protects the interest of the finder. On one hand, it stimulates the positivity of returning, avoiding resource waste; on the other hand, it benefits both parties, realizing the balance between rights and obligations. The analysis shows that current lose things and collect the system in China is too idealistic, out of the times’ development and changing, at the meanwhile, violates the legislative intent of the Civil Law and Property Law of China in terms of protecting the holder’s ownership right of lost property.Part three discusses the improvement can be done in current legislation and system related to reward request right. A whole set of specific compensation standards must be made to ensure a reasonable, scientific and feasible compensation climb system. This part discusses the improvement can done in compensation claim system. By analyzing the precondition of compensation claim system, this part proposes some ideas about establishing compensation claim system in China. First of all is to standardize the amount of compensation in China, allowing the finder to take lien of lost property if the holder refuse to pay relative reimbursement. And if the finder can not find the right holder and hands it up to relative departments, the latter should pay for the compensation in advance; if there is a concurrence of compensation and granted reward, the finder is free to choose accepting it or giving it up. The end of this part discusses reasonable limit should be set for the finder in compensation claim.Lost Property system exists between morality and law, justice and efficiency, motive security and still security, relating to the choice between personal benefit and national benefit of lost property, whose teoretical and realistic significance can not be neglected. By comparing the Chinese and foreign systems, this paper expresses reflection on factual lost property system of China and presents detailed argument about improvement can be done in Chinese compensation claim system,with the hope to make due contributions to Chinese lost property legislation. |
PDF Full Text Request