赎回作为民法中的法律事实

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
A. Ryzhenkov
{"title":"赎回作为民法中的法律事实","authors":"A. Ryzhenkov","doi":"10.17223/22253513/40/16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is devoted to the problem of redemption as a legal fact. In its external form and in its legal consequences, it represents a paid transfer of ownership of a thing and thus primarily resembles a contract of sale, so that it could be considered as a special case of it. However, at the doctrinal level, there is a completely different picture, where the redemption under its civil law regime is not only not identified with the purchase and sale, but sometimes does not even receive unambiguous recognition as a transaction. It is noted that the comparison of various options for redemption, enshrined in the norms of civil law, allows us to identify one common feature for them: in all cases, the decision to transfer ownership or to terminate the obligation (as in the case of an annuity contract) is made not by mutual will, but unilaterally. At the same time, the transfer of the right or the termination of the legal relationship in all cases is carried out on a strictly reimbursable basis. The universal property of redemption is precisely the legal effect, the emergence of a new legal relationship is only optional. Therefore, it is possible to formulate the definition of re-demption as a paid termination of a real or binding legal relationship at the request of one of the parties or a third party. In determining the redemption price, the agreement of the parties one of them is obliged to pay the agreed amount and the right to appropriate the thing from another – an obligation to provide the item and receive the agreed amount. Thus, the relation-ship of the participants in the buyout fits the description of the obligation. Moreover, the existence of an agreement between the parties indicates that this obligation is of a contractual nature. In the case of a buyout, such an integral element of the freedom of contract as the ability to decide at its own discretion whether to enter into this contract or not to enter into it is not maintained. More precisely, only one of the parties to the contract, namely the initiator of the purchase, is entitled to such a right, and this violates another fundamental principle of civil law – the equality of the participants in the legal relationship. The overall buyout model is a complex factual composition and includes the following elements: 1) the Base purchase (for example, abandoned the maintenance of cultural values, the mistreatment of animals, disagreeing with the decision of the shareholders meeting, etc); 2) treatment with the ransom demand, the transaction; 3) determination of the redemption price of: a) by agreement – a contractual obligation; b) court – ordered non-contractual obli-gation; 4) Payment of the purchase price (optional characterized proprietary and joint rela-tions, is the transfer of property to the payer; 5) Termination of a pre-existing legal relation-ship (with or without a new one).","PeriodicalId":41435,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"REDEMPTION AS A LEGAL FACT IN CIVIL LAW\",\"authors\":\"A. Ryzhenkov\",\"doi\":\"10.17223/22253513/40/16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article is devoted to the problem of redemption as a legal fact. In its external form and in its legal consequences, it represents a paid transfer of ownership of a thing and thus primarily resembles a contract of sale, so that it could be considered as a special case of it. However, at the doctrinal level, there is a completely different picture, where the redemption under its civil law regime is not only not identified with the purchase and sale, but sometimes does not even receive unambiguous recognition as a transaction. It is noted that the comparison of various options for redemption, enshrined in the norms of civil law, allows us to identify one common feature for them: in all cases, the decision to transfer ownership or to terminate the obligation (as in the case of an annuity contract) is made not by mutual will, but unilaterally. At the same time, the transfer of the right or the termination of the legal relationship in all cases is carried out on a strictly reimbursable basis. The universal property of redemption is precisely the legal effect, the emergence of a new legal relationship is only optional. Therefore, it is possible to formulate the definition of re-demption as a paid termination of a real or binding legal relationship at the request of one of the parties or a third party. In determining the redemption price, the agreement of the parties one of them is obliged to pay the agreed amount and the right to appropriate the thing from another – an obligation to provide the item and receive the agreed amount. Thus, the relation-ship of the participants in the buyout fits the description of the obligation. Moreover, the existence of an agreement between the parties indicates that this obligation is of a contractual nature. In the case of a buyout, such an integral element of the freedom of contract as the ability to decide at its own discretion whether to enter into this contract or not to enter into it is not maintained. More precisely, only one of the parties to the contract, namely the initiator of the purchase, is entitled to such a right, and this violates another fundamental principle of civil law – the equality of the participants in the legal relationship. The overall buyout model is a complex factual composition and includes the following elements: 1) the Base purchase (for example, abandoned the maintenance of cultural values, the mistreatment of animals, disagreeing with the decision of the shareholders meeting, etc); 2) treatment with the ransom demand, the transaction; 3) determination of the redemption price of: a) by agreement – a contractual obligation; b) court – ordered non-contractual obli-gation; 4) Payment of the purchase price (optional characterized proprietary and joint rela-tions, is the transfer of property to the payer; 5) Termination of a pre-existing legal relation-ship (with or without a new one).\",\"PeriodicalId\":41435,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/40/16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta-Pravo-Tomsk State University Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17223/22253513/40/16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章专门讨论作为法律事实的赎回问题。就其外在形式和法律后果而言,它代表了对某物所有权的有偿转让,因此主要类似于买卖合同,因此它可以被视为买卖合同的一个特例。然而,在理论层面上,却出现了完全不同的情况,在其民法制度下,赎回不仅不等同于买卖,有时甚至不被明确地承认为一种交易。值得注意的是,对民法规范所载的各种赎回选择的比较使我们能够确定它们的一个共同特点:在所有情况下,转让所有权或终止义务的决定(如年金合同的情况)不是由双方意愿作出的,而是单方面作出的。同时,在所有情况下,权利的转让或法律关系的终止都是在严格可偿还的基础上进行的。赎回的普遍属性恰恰是法律效力,新的法律关系的出现只是可有可无的。因此,可以将赎回定义为应一方当事人或第三方的要求,有偿终止一种真实的或有约束力的法律关系。在确定赎回价格时,双方当事人达成协议,一方有义务支付约定的金额,并有权从另一方占有该物品,即有义务提供该物品并获得约定的金额。因此,买断参与人之间的关系符合义务的描述。此外,当事双方之间存在协议表明,这项义务具有合同性质。在买断的情况下,合同自由的组成部分,如自行决定是否签订本合同的能力,没有得到维护。更确切地说,只有合同的一方,即购买的发起者,才有权享有这种权利,这违反了民法的另一项基本原则- -法律关系参与者的平等。整体收购模式是一个复杂的事实构成,包括以下要素:1)基础收购(如放弃文化价值的维护、虐待动物、不同意股东大会的决定等);2)处理与赎金要求有关的交易;3)赎回价格的确定:a)通过协议-合同义务;B)法院裁定的非契约性义务;4)购买价款的支付(可选的具有所有权和连带关系的),是财产向付款人的转移;5)终止已存在的法律关系(有或没有新的法律关系)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
REDEMPTION AS A LEGAL FACT IN CIVIL LAW
The article is devoted to the problem of redemption as a legal fact. In its external form and in its legal consequences, it represents a paid transfer of ownership of a thing and thus primarily resembles a contract of sale, so that it could be considered as a special case of it. However, at the doctrinal level, there is a completely different picture, where the redemption under its civil law regime is not only not identified with the purchase and sale, but sometimes does not even receive unambiguous recognition as a transaction. It is noted that the comparison of various options for redemption, enshrined in the norms of civil law, allows us to identify one common feature for them: in all cases, the decision to transfer ownership or to terminate the obligation (as in the case of an annuity contract) is made not by mutual will, but unilaterally. At the same time, the transfer of the right or the termination of the legal relationship in all cases is carried out on a strictly reimbursable basis. The universal property of redemption is precisely the legal effect, the emergence of a new legal relationship is only optional. Therefore, it is possible to formulate the definition of re-demption as a paid termination of a real or binding legal relationship at the request of one of the parties or a third party. In determining the redemption price, the agreement of the parties one of them is obliged to pay the agreed amount and the right to appropriate the thing from another – an obligation to provide the item and receive the agreed amount. Thus, the relation-ship of the participants in the buyout fits the description of the obligation. Moreover, the existence of an agreement between the parties indicates that this obligation is of a contractual nature. In the case of a buyout, such an integral element of the freedom of contract as the ability to decide at its own discretion whether to enter into this contract or not to enter into it is not maintained. More precisely, only one of the parties to the contract, namely the initiator of the purchase, is entitled to such a right, and this violates another fundamental principle of civil law – the equality of the participants in the legal relationship. The overall buyout model is a complex factual composition and includes the following elements: 1) the Base purchase (for example, abandoned the maintenance of cultural values, the mistreatment of animals, disagreeing with the decision of the shareholders meeting, etc); 2) treatment with the ransom demand, the transaction; 3) determination of the redemption price of: a) by agreement – a contractual obligation; b) court – ordered non-contractual obli-gation; 4) Payment of the purchase price (optional characterized proprietary and joint rela-tions, is the transfer of property to the payer; 5) Termination of a pre-existing legal relation-ship (with or without a new one).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信