Research On Bill Recourse Litigation

In order to ensure the security of bills and promote the circulation of bills,the Negotiable Instruments Law prescribes the system of recourse.When the right to request payment is not satisfied,the holder can file a bill recourse lawsuit to realize his bill interests.Recourse litigation often involve the interests of many parties to the instrument.However,due to the imperfection of relevant legislation and the low attention paid by the theoretical community to instrument recourse litigation,many long-disputed recourse litigation issues have not been resolved.At present,there are mainly the following problems in the handling of such cases:First,in terms of the limitation of instrument rights,there is still controversy over the determination of the nature of the limitation period of instrument rights,and the provisions on the starting point of the limitation period for recourse rights are not clear.Second,with regard to the parties to the instrument recourse litigation,there are mainly issues of whether the bearer has the qualifications as a plaintiff when the endorsement of the instrument is not continuous,and whether the drawer should be added as the defendant or a third party.Third,on the issue of evidence in instrument recourse litigation,there is the problem that it is not clear whether the status of the note prompting payment to be signed can be used as proof of refusal of payment,and the distribution of the burden of proof of the parties is not clear.Fourth,in criminal and civil cross-type instrument recourse litigation,the mode of recourse litigation when the recourse dispute involves fraudulent crimes is not clear.In order to solve the above problems,China’s instrument recourse litigation system can be improved from the following aspects: First,in order to facilitate the bearer’s timely exercise of the right of recourse,the nature of the limitation of the right in the instrument should be recognized as extinguished,and the date of the limitation period for recourse should be determined based on the circumstances of the recourse of the recourse of the recourse.Second,when identifying the legitimate parties to the recourse litigation,the plaintiff should be judged to be qualified by the substantive examination doctrine,and there is no need to add the drawer as a co-defendant or a third party.Thirdly,with regard to the issue of evidence in the recourse litigation of bills,it is more reasonable to consider the instrument in the state of "prompt payment to be signed" as proof of refusal of payment,and at the same time,the burden of proof of the recourse litigant should be allocated according to the principle of causality.Second,when identifying the legitimate parties to the recourse litigation,the plaintiff should be judged to be qualified by the substantive examination doctrine,and there is no need to add the drawer as a co-defendant or a third party.Thirdly,with regard to the issue of evidence in the recourse litigation of bills,it is more reasonable to consider the instrument in the state of "prompt payment to be signed" as proof of refusal of payment,and at the same time,the burden of proof of the recourse litigant should be allocated according to the principle of causality.Finally,the mode of treatment of recourse proceedings should be distinguished by the different modes of conduct of fraud-type offences.