| |
金融論文 中英
持票人權利的可限制性
Restriction of the Holder’s Right
持票人權利一般不受前手身份或前手間原因關系的影響，即使票據(jù)上記載原因關系，只要不構成條件性限制，票據(jù)就仍然有流通性，受讓票據(jù)的人就能享受抗辯切斷的利益。這在英美法上就意味著受讓票據(jù)的人有機會成為正當持票人。流通票據(jù)持票人的這種不受制于最初當事人之間的抗辯的性質(zhì)，使流通票據(jù)成為廣為接受的金錢替代物。對于這一流通票據(jù)轉(zhuǎn)讓的一般規(guī)則，日內(nèi)瓦統(tǒng)一票據(jù)法體系和英美票據(jù)法體系都做了規(guī)定，雖然方式不同，但效果一致。但隨著社會經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展和消費者主權運動的推動，在英美票據(jù)法司法實踐中，為保護消費者利益，對消費者簽發(fā)的票據(jù)做了特殊的考慮，并體現(xiàn)在一些國家最新修訂的票據(jù)立法中，從而使英美票據(jù)法的衡平色彩更加鮮明。
Commonly the holder’s rights are free of influences from the former holder’s status or the relationship between former holders. Even if the instrument has the record of reasons or relationship, it will still be negotiable and the instrument transferee will still enjoy the profits of demurrer cut-off so long as there is no conditionality confinement, which means the instrument transferee will have an opportunity to become the holder in due course according to the Anglo-American law system. Such property of negotiable instrument holder free of demurrers between former parties concerned has made negotiable instruments become a money substitute accepted widely. For such general rules on transfer of negotiable instruments, both Geneva uniform negotiable instrument law system and Anglo-American negotiable instrument law system have provided relevant provisions which, although having different modes, achieve the same effects. However, along which socio-economic development and consumer sovereignty movement, to protect the interests of consumers, Anglo-American system of negotiable instrument laws have set special considerations on the instruments issued by consumers in juridical practices, which are indicated in some latest amended instrument laws, making the Anglo-American negotiable instrument laws have more evident equity colors.
票據(jù)一般在商事主體之間使用，但近年來越來越多的消費者以消費信貸的方式購買商品或接受服務。其通常作法是消費者簽發(fā)票據(jù)給賣方，賣方將票據(jù)以一定的折扣轉(zhuǎn)讓給第三人(多為銀行)。當賣方未履行交貨義務，或所提供的貨物或服務有缺陷時，消費者就將延遲支付票據(jù)，直到賣方交貨或糾正了其履行瑕疵。但消費者的這種自我保護，只有在票據(jù)被賣方持有時才能實現(xiàn)。一旦票據(jù)流通到第三人手中，并且第三人符合正當持票人的全部要件時，消費者就必須向持票人全額支付票款，因為消費者的對人抗辯對于正當持票人是沒有效力的，消費者只能設法從賣方尋求補償，如果找不到賣方或者賣方推脫責任，那么消費者將處在一個很不利的位置。假如消費者對第三人，如銀行等，也能夠延遲支付，直到賣方交貨或糾正了其履行瑕疵，那么對于消費者利益的護將會非常有利。而達到這一效果，無疑需要對正當持票人規(guī)則加以限制。gxgkickz.com
Instruments are commonly used between business bodies. But in recent years, more and more consumers buy merchandises or accept services in consumer credit. The common practice is that consumers issue documents to the seller and the seller transfers the instruments with certain discount to the third party (mainly banks). If the seller fails to fulfill its delivery obligations or its provided goods or services have any defect, the consumer will delay the payment of instruments until the seller delivers the goods or corrects its performance defects. However, such self-protection of consumers can not be realized until the documents are held by the seller. Once the instrument is negotiated to the third party who has all essentials for a holder in due course, the consumer must pay full instrument amounts to the holder because the demurrer of consumer is invalid for a holder in due course. What the consumer can do is to seek compensations from the seller. If the seller is unavailable or flees the responsibility, the consumer will be at a very unfavorable position. If the consumer may also delay its payment to the third party, such as banks, until the sellers deliver the goods or corrects its performance defects, it will be favorable for protection of the consumer's interests. To realize such effect, it is undoubtedly to confine the rules for holder in due course.
|
|
翻譯樣本 
