Legal And Economic Analysis On The Ownership Of Parking Space And Garage

The controversy caused by the problem of residential parking spaces and garage ownership has a long history in our country.In recent years,with the continuous increase in the number of cars owned by Chinese owners,the shortage of parking resources has made it more important to clarify the ownership problem.The promulgation of the Property Law in2007 responded to the controversial issues.Subsequently,the Supreme People's Court promulgated a judicial interpretation of the Property Law.However,because the legal provisions were too principled and incomplete,the effect of resolving disputes over car parking spaces and garage ownership was minimal.There are numerous articles in the academic circle on how to improve the parking spaces and garage ownership regulations in the community,and the related theoretical research is also controversial.Through the continuous optimization of theory and the accumulation of judicial practice experience,there is no unified standard for the judgment of the disputes of parking spaces and garage ownership in the community.The legislation needs to be further improved.Civil Code does not pay attention to this controversial issue,only the "should first meet the needs of owners" as a separate regulation,the other parts have not been changed.In essence,merely emphasizing the protection of the owner's priority does not really resolve the dispute over the ownership of parking spaces and garages in the community.The crux of the dispute lies in the unclear property rights.The Civil Code should divide the ownership of car parking spaces and garages in detail,so as to achieve breakthrough progress in solving the problem of parking difficulties in our country.There is logical consistency between law and economics.The pursuit of fairness and justice in law and economics are not contradictory.The two are interrelated,and efficiency is also the inherent pursuit of the property right system.Using law and economics theory to explain the disputes of parking spaces and garages in the community is conducive to seeing through the essence of the dispute.In the real world where transaction costs are positive,a property rights system that does not meet economic efficiency generates higher transaction costs.In order to reduce transaction costs,an efficient property rights system should be formulated in conjunction with economics.The division of property rights in line with economic efficiency is more conducive to the best use of properties and the realization of the largest social output value.Summarize through judicial precedents.Under the current property rights system arrangement,how the court resolved disputes between owners and developers about parking spaces and garages in the community.It was concluded that the judicial decisionscaused by the imperfections of relevant laws are not very similar,and therefore should be refined.The conclusion of the provisions of relevant laws and regulations.By collecting,consulting,and analyzing the legislative trends,judicial precedents,and literature related to the parking spaces and garages in the community,different views are put forward on some academic viewpoints.On this basis,combined with law and economics,put forward ideas that are beneficial to solve the problem of residential parking spaces and garage ownership.Through the two assumptions of allocating ground parking spaces to owners or developers,it is analyzed which ownership allocation scheme is more fair and effective.Combined with game theory method and opportunity cost theory,it analyzes related issues about underground garage and its rent and sale.Based on the theoretical analysis of law and economics,it should be clearly stipulated in the real right part of the Civil Code that: the ground parking space should be expressly stipulated by law to be jointly owned by the owner,and the ownership reserved by the developer should be deemed invalid;the underground garage should be owned by the developer,and the developer is forbidden only for sell but not rent,and the owner should enjoy the free use right if there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear;if the developer violates the principle of "meeting the needs of the owner first" and signs a contract with a non owner,the contract is invalid.