夫妻日常家事代理的反思
Reflections on Couples’ Daily Family Agency
摘要: 在特定历史时代背景下出现的日常家事代理制度,并没有达到保障交易安全、维护婚姻家庭的双重目的。日常家事代理制度自动将夫妻双方变成连带债务人,非但破坏了债的相对性,使该制度成为债权人的“便车”;也过度保护债权人,破坏了家庭的和睦。此外,对日常家事代理性质的划分也仍存在问题。如果无法找出该制度的新进路,则对其存废仍需进一步思考。
Abstract:
The daily family agency system that appeared in the context of a specific historical era did not achieve the dual pur-pose of ensuring the safety of transactions and maintaining marriage and family. The day-to-day family agency system automatically turns both spouses into joint and several debtors, not only un-dermining the relativity of debts, but making the system a “free ride” for creditors; it also overpro-tects creditors and undermines family harmony. In addition, there are still problems with the de-marcation of the nature of day-to-day family affairs. If a new approach to the system could not be identified, further thought was needed on its survival.
参考文献
|
[1]
|
黄薇, 主编. 中华人民共和国民法典婚姻家庭编释义[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2020.
|
|
[2]
|
马亿南, 杨朝. 日常家事代理权研究[J]. 法学家, 2000(4): 30.
|
|
[3]
|
王战涛. 日常家事代理之批判[J]. 法学家, 2019(3): 17.
|
|
[4]
|
贺剑. 《民法典》第1060条(日常家事代理)评注[J]. 南京大学学报(哲学人文科学社会科学版), 2021, 58(4): 20.
|
|
[5]
|
杨振宏.《民法典》总则增加家事代理制度的立法建议[J]. 苏州大学学报(哲学社会科学版), 2016, 37(6): 10.
|
|
[6]
|
史尚宽. 亲属法论[M]. 北京: 中国政法大学出版社, 2000.
|
|
[7]
|
史浩明. 论夫妻日常家事代理权[J]. 政治与法律, 2005(3): 6.
|
|
[8]
|
徐海燕. 英美代理法研究[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2000: 152-153.
|
|
[9]
|
余延满. 亲属法原论[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2007.
|
|
[10]
|
申晨. 夫妻财产法价值本位位移及实现方式——以约定财产制的完善为重点[J]. 法学家, 2018(2): 14.
|
|
[11]
|
von Girke, O. (1889) Der Entwurf eines bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs und das deutsche Recht. Duncker & Humblot, Leipzig, S. 405 f.
|