The Study Of Endorsement-System Of Negotiable Instrument

More and more researches on negotiable instrument endorsement are done recently. The main reason of this phenomenon is, as the rapid growth of our market economy and the financing operations, bills are used more frequently. And this requires the endorsement system to be improved. Improving the endorsement system is of paramount importance to strengthen the financing function of negotiable instrument and the promotion of our economic and social development.Among all these relevant researches, most of them are based on financial and judicial practice. They are pertinence and reflect the requirement of the judicial practice to improve the endorsement system. But they can only scratch the surface of it, and are short of serious ideological analysis. By contrast, scholars like Dong cui xiang, Lu lai ming, Feng wei hong, Zhang chuan hua, Dong shi zhong, Gong ling analyzes this problem ideologically.Based on theories and the legislative practices of nations, this treatise discourses on some controversial issues of negotiable instrument endorsement system. This treatise firstly gives a chief introduction of the fundamental theories of endorsement, then discourses some relevant issues of blank endorsement, endorsement on overdue bill, restrictive endorsement and endorsement of pledge.Blank endorsement is not acknowledged legislatively in our country by now. According to the article 30 of Negotiable Instrument Law, a bill must be endorsed with the name of endorsee. But blank endorsement does exist in practical sphere. The fact that the validity of blank endorsement is not admitted by our law makes the fundamental trading relations under the danger of invalidation for lack of formal requirements. In order to finish the deals, people have to take measures to fulfill the blank endorsement, even to counterfeit other's signatures. Firstly this treatise summarizes the fundamental theories of blank endorsement including the transfer manners under blank endorsement, then this treatise analysis the right of the endorsee in blank endorsement. After that this treatise gives the following reasons for admitting the validity of blank endorsement in our law: firstly, blank endorsement does exist in practical sphere; secondly, blank endorsement can not always be detected by people, sometimes it is "invisible"; thirdly, people can keep the balance of their interests under the situation of blank endorsement; fourthly, the transaction of bill can be promoted under blank endorsement; fifthly, blank endorsement can reduce the obligation of the endorsers and this is good for their interests; sixthly, blank endorsement can reduce the costs of transaction and the obligation of billing debtors; seventhly, blank endorsement will not affect the sequence of endorsement formally or actually; Eighthly, commenting some theories; ninthly, the conclusion. And also the writer demonstrates his opinion by the fact that most of the bills in China are highly insured by national banks. This conclusion is made by analyzing others' theories. At the end of this part, based on the fact of our country, this treatise advises to use blank endorsement in our country and to improve some rules.The following part is "endorsement on overdue bill" part. The validity of endorsement on overdue bill is also denied by our law. This can be proved by article 36 of Negotiable Instrument Law. Firstly this treatise summarizes the fundamental theories of endorsement on overdue bill, then mainly introduces all the standards that are taken by other nations to judge whether an endorsement is an endorsement on overdue bill. Then analyzes these standards under the reality of our nation, choose which is the best. Meanwhile this treatise summarizes the validity of endorsement on overdue bill and the rights that endorsees have under endorsement on overdue bill. Then comments the article 36 of Negotiable Instrument Law and relative laws from logical relations, the freedom of parties and obligations comparation. Finally, the writer makes a conclusion that the standard of "overdue" should be continued, the validity of this endorsement should be hold, and the obligation of the drawer and the payer to the endorsee of the overdue bill should be definitely explained.Before summarizing the basic theories of restrictive endorsement, this treatise introduces the categories of restrictive endorsement. Restrictive endorsement can be divided into two parts: indorsed by the drawer and indorsed by the endorser. The former can restrict the transaction of the bill, the drawer and billing debtor only responsible for the payee. Others' billing rights are not insured by them. The later can not restrict the transaction of the bill, but it makes the endorser only responsible for his direct endorsee. The billing obligations of the drawer, the debtor and other endorser are not changed. After that this treatise discusses the manners, validities and reasons of restrictive endorsement. In order to verify whether it is legal for parties to make endorsements of pledge after restrictive endorsement, the writer compares different theories and judgment reasons. And at the end of this part this treatise makes a conclusion that the validity of endorsements of pledge after the drawer make restrictive endorsements could be concluded as the validity of the endorsement on overdue bill, that is the validity of "normal creditor's rights transaction".At the end of this treatise the writer firstly makes a brief summary of the fundamental theories of 'endorsement of pledge'. Then this treatise presents a case to demonstrate whether the endorsement of pledge is an efficient element or a counter element to billing pledge. Since the negotiable instrument law and the Law of Reality and the judicial interpretations of negotiable instrument law have different understandings about this issue, this issue becomes a controversial question. On the basic of reality, this treatise compares the two different theories, analyzes the interests of the billing parties and the aim of the whole endorsement system, then makes a conclusion that the billing pledge will not be legal unless there is an endorsement of pledge before it.