农居房交易中未成年人共有权益的保护与赔偿

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (0)

Download: PDF (514 KB) HTML (1 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Due to the particularity of housing sources, possession, transfer and other aspects, sellers of farmers’ resettlement houses are inclined to use damages to the minors’ interests as “excuses” to break the contract and cause credibility crisis. In order to properly balance the interests of minors and the safety of transactions in the cases involving minors, it is necessary to solve the problems in the application of laws such as the effectiveness of sales contracts under different litigants and claims, the nature of disposition not for the interests of minor children, and the standards for subsequent damage compensation. Under the existing legal framework, in order to fill the legal loopholes in the disposal of minors’ property, it is necessary to appropriately introduce the theory of ostensible agency to provide legal basis for recognizing the external validity of parents’ disposition on behalf of their children, and on this basis reasonably determine the basis and standards for the establishment of the subsequent compensation litigation of minor children. In view of the loopholes in the provisions of China’s civil law on the disposal of minors’ property, it is better to avoid the differences and bias in judgment standard and establish a unified standard for the application of law by modifying the law to replace the subsequent benefit balance and relief after the event with the preset interest partition mechanism.

Key words： disputes in transaction of farmerx' resettlement houses disposition not for the interest of the minor children ostensible agency prima facie evidence

Received: 04 September 2018

PACS:

D923.2

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	XIAO Xia

Cite this article:

XIAO Xia. Protection and Compensation of Minors’ Rights in Transaction of Farmers’ Resettlement Houses[J]. , 2018, 35(6): 101-110.

URL:

https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/ OR https://xb.szu.edu.cn/EN/Y2018/V35/I6/101

[1] (2014)杭滨民初字第314号判决书[EB/OL].中国裁判文书网,http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?DocID=2dd0d3fa-d4d4-4bfd-9d7f-e49a6f4420bc&KeyWord=%EF%BC%882014%EF%BC%89%E6%9D%AD%E6%BB%A8%E6%B0%91%E5%88%9D%E5%AD%97%E7%AC%AC314%E5%8F%B7,2018-05-01.
[2] (2014)杭滨民初字第782号判决书[EB/OL].中国裁判文书网,http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?Doc ID=91e8bc22-190a-40b4-b2f1-566a579a4aab&KeyWord=%EF%BC%882014%EF%BC%89%E6%9D%AD%E6%BB%A8%E6%B0%91%E5%88%9D%E5%AD%97%E7%AC%AC314%E5%8F%B7,2018-05-10.
[3] (2015)浙杭民终字第1957号判决书[EB/OL].中国裁判文书网,http://wenshu.court.gov.cn/content/content?Doc ID=11b084a9-a3f8-4b0d-a3b1-c750a6154b9f&KeyWord=%EF%BC%882014%EF%BC%89%E6%9D%AD%E6%BB%A8%E6%B0%91%E5%88%9D%E5%AD%97%E7%AC%AC314%E5%8F%B7,2018-05-15.
[4] 齐欣. 未成年人财产权的法律保护研究[J].人民论坛,2011,(6):62-64.
[5] 戴东雄. 论父母对于未成年子女财产之权限[A].台大法学论丛[C].1980,(12):143-146.
[6] 孟令志. 未成年人财产权保护的几个基本问题研究[J]. 法商研究,2007,(3):79-85.
[7] 王泽鉴. 父母非为未成年子女利益处分其财产之效力[A].民法判例与学说研究(第一册)[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003. 622-624.
[8] 陈琪炎. 民法亲属新论[M].台湾:三民书局,1995.272.
[9] 李宜琛. 现行亲属法论[M].重庆:重庆商务印书馆,1944. 142.
[10] 吴瑾瑜. 违反子女利益不得“处分”乎?抑或不得“代理”处分乎?[J].月旦裁判时报, 2016,50(8):14-20.
[11] 季秀平. 关于表见代理理解与适用的几个疑难问题[J].学习论坛,2011,27(12):72-76.
[12] 朱伯玉. 关于表见代理的思考[J].北方经贸,2001,(3):68-70.
[13] 冉克平. 表见代理本人归责性要件的反思与重构[J].法律科学,2016,(1):72-80.
[14] 罗瑶. 法国表见代理构成要件研究——兼评我国《合同法》第49条[J].比较法学研究,2011,(4):56-70.
[15] 杨代雄. 表见代理的特别构成要件[J].法学,2013,(2):58-70.
[16] 朱虎. 表见代理中的被代理人可归责性[J].法学研究,2017,(2):59-74.
[17] 王泽鉴.债法原理(第二版)[M] 北京:北京大学出版社,2013.302.
[18] 史尚宽. 民法总论[M],北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.493.
[19] 方新军. 《民法总则》第七章“代理”制度的成功与不足[J].华东政法大学学报,2017,(3):35-48.
[20] 张俊岩. 民事损害赔偿范围之研究[J].暨南学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,(2):56-60.
[21] 葛云松. 纯粹经济损失的赔偿与一般侵权行为条款[J]. 中外法学,2009,(5):689-736.
[22] 郑学任. 论亲子利益相反行为与特别代理——以日本法制为借鉴[J].法令月刊,2012,63(9):73-86.