Analysis Of The Legal Issues On Appeal Case Of Bill Dispute Between Gejie Textile Store And Juan Juan Textile Store

In the process of bill circulation,loss of bill is a common situation.If the bill is lost relatively, it may be put into circulation since the bill still exists as an object,and it can be held by other subjects.At this point,two subjects will have the rights on the bill,which may raise a controversy about the ownership of the bill between the two subjects.The original owner usually takes legal action,for example, public notice, to relieve his rights of bill. In practice,many people fabricate the fact that the bill is lost based on a variety of illegal reasons in order to apply for public notice,which infringes the rights of the holder in due course and the order of courts.Usually,the court will have to put these things into consideration when it deals with such cases between the original owner and the holder in due course:how to identify the fact that if the original owner really lost the bill; how to allocate the burden of proof;whether to consider the cause of the bill; whether the final holder acquired the rights of the lost bill in good faith.The courts may adjudicate at their discretion in practice since there is no detailed and unified standards and legal liabilities about the misrepresenting behavior in the bill law,which may bring about the fact that the results of judgment of similar cases are quite different. And there is no detailed rules about the allocation of the burden of proof in the bill law,so the courts has to cite the rules of civil procedural law,which may raise a series of problems.What's more,there is no detailed rules about the non-causative nature of the bill and the good faith acquisition system of the bill,which brings about the fact that different courts have different understandings about the rules.The legislator should make detailed and unified standards about the misrepresenting behavior,the allocation of the burden of proof on the basis of the difficulties and their fault,the non-causative nature of the bill and the the good faith acquisition system of the bill in the bill law.Specifically,the original owner will be recognized as a fraud if he can't prove the fact that he really lost the bill,as the result,he has to accept the legal sanctions.As to the allocation of the burden of proof,relatively speaking,the original owner shall bear more strict burden of proof than the final holder,the original owner shall prove the fact that he really lost the bill and the final holder got the bill illegally.The original owner can't defend the final holder with the cause of the bill on the basis of the non-causative nature of the bill.The position where the final holder decides whether to apply for the good faith acquisition system of the bill. It is necessary to apply for the good faith acquisition system of the bill if the final holder is right behind the original owner,and the court shall review the fact that if the final holder acquired the lost bill in good faith,otherwise,there is no need to apply for the good faith acquisition system of the bill,the final holder is the legitimate holder if the endorsement on the bill is continuous.