保留所有權出賣人取回權行使規則的沖突及其化解

Conflicts in the Rules on the Exercise of a Retention-of-title Seller’s Right to Retrieve and Their Resolution

《合同法》第134條對所有權保留買賣作出明確規定，雖然立法與實務不否認出賣人取回權的擔保功能，但更注重其外在表現形式。原《買賣合同司法解釋》第36條總體上採納形式主義擔保觀，對出賣人取回權作了限制，以強化對買受人和第三人的權利保護。新《買賣合同司法解釋》第26條延續上述做法，以買受人的付款比例作為限制出賣人取回權的標準，同時以善意取得制度保護善意第三人，這與《民法典》和《擔保制度司法解釋》將出賣人的“所有權”功能化為擔保物權的基本理念不符，亦與正常經營活動買受人規則和統一清償順位規則存在一定衝突，故應限制其適用範圍。

§134 of the previous Contract Law has made clear provisions on sales under retention of title, although legislation and practice didnot deny its security function, but paid more attention to its external form. At the same time,§36 of the previous Judicial Interpretation about Contracts of Sale largely adopted a formalistism over secured transactions and restricted the seller’s right to retrieve in order to strengthen the protection of the rights of the buyer and third parties. However,§26 of the new Judicial Interpretation about Contracts of Sale follows the above practice, using the buyer’s percentage of payment as a criterion for limiting the seller’s right to retrieve, while protecting third parties with good faith acquisition, which is inconsistent with the basic concept of functionalizing the seller’s“ownership”into a security interest in the Civil Code and the Judicial Interpretation about Security over Movables and Rights. It is also in obvious conflict with the rule of buyer in the ordinary course of business (BIOC) and the uniform rule of priorities, and should be limited.