| 英文摘要 |
According to the exception clauses stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 87 or Paragraph 2 of Article 92 of the Civil Code of Taiwan, the voidance or the revocation of an expression of intent cannot be a valid defense against the bona fide third party, which means that the third party in good faith may claim the expression of intent being valid in lawsuits related to fictitious or fraud-procured expressions of intent. Most scholars in Taiwan asserted that lessees are excluded from the scope of the bona fide third party. This article argues that bona fide lessees should be included in such scope. Furthermore, by introducing the “chained possession theory” in German law, bona fide lessees are entitled to possess leased property against owners with defective expressions under various circumstances. In addition, expressers making fictitious expressions of intent should act without prejudice to any rights of bona fide lessees, whether being negligent or not. As for the deceived expressers, bona fide lessees are protected by law only if they act without negligence. Nevertheless, when expressions of intent are procured under duress, expressers may revoke them against lessees in good faith even though lessees act without negligence. In addition, borrowers of loan for use should be excluded from the concept of the bona fide third party as mentioned above, because there is no any empirical reason to protect them.
|
