Research On Seller’s Recall Right In The Sale With The Retained Title

The promulgation of the interpretation of the supreme people’s court on the application of law in the trial of disputes over sales contracts has changed the previous legislation’s only definition of the system of ownership retention and filled in the legislative gap of the system,which has made great progress compared with the previous one.However,it has to be said that these provisions have not established a complete system for the seller to exercise the recall right,so that the seller’s exercise of the recall right under ownership reservation is frequently blocked,and there are many disputes arising from the exercise of the right of recovery in judicial practice.Based on cases involving recall exercise in our country is analyzed and the written judgment,puts forward the problems facing the recall exercise and causes on the basis of the nature of title retention system and the seller recall,recall exercise conditions,scope,procedures,and seller recall and look forward to the buyer,the right of a third person,the essay discusses the conflict and balance of good faith.The contents of this paper are divided into six parts,including introduction,question raising,analysis on the nature of the seller’s right of recovery,the exercise of the seller’s right of recovery,the conflict and balance between the seller’s right of recovery and the third party’s right of recovery.The following is the main content of the context of the introduction:The first part of the introduction highlights the main problems that need to be solved in this paper.In the second part,through the analysis of two typical cases,the author points out many problems in the process of the seller’s recall right,and puts forward that the reason for the judicial dilemma in the exercise of the recall right lies in the unclear understanding of the legal nature and function of ownership retention and recall right in practice,as well as the vacancy in the legislation of ownership retention and right of recovery.The third part is based on the theoretical basis of title retention system and analyze the nature of recall right,it is concluded that title retention properties shall adopt "guarantee the ownership of the said," recall should adopt a "security interest" conclusion,and on this basis to recall and termination of the contract,the right of creditor’s rights,the right to highlight the independent value of recall.The fourth part is the core of this paper,based on the current laws and regulations toexplain the conditions,scope and procedures for the exercise of the right of retrieval,and in conjunction with the provisions of the relevant content of the draft Civil Code,make recommendations for areas that need to be supplemented and improved.If the legislation should refine the conditions for the exercise of the right of retrieval,the buyer ’s payment of more than 75% of the seller ’s loss of the right of retrieval is still unreasonable and should be adjusted.When the subject matter is attached,the seller ’s retrieval cannot be excluded Right of return,but should be subject to reasonable restrictions.When the subject matter is resold,the seller ’s right of recovery can be traced back to the buyer ’s resale price.If the subject matter produces fruit,it should be distinguished between the time of generation and the buyer ’s Redemption.In addition,the procedures for the exercise of the right of retrieval should stipulate a reminder before retrieval,and allow two forms of self-recovery and judicial retrieval.The fifth part discusses the conflict and balance between the seller’s right of recovery and the buyer’s expectation right,mainly through the seller’s right of recovery and the buyer’s right of redemption,the seller’s right of resale and the buyer’s right of resale,and the buyer and seller’s right of claim for damages.The sixth part expounds the conflict and balance between the seller’s right of recovery and the third party’s acquisition in good faith.Firstly,it is pointed out that it is necessary to establish the public disclosure system of ownership retention to ensure the external effectiveness of the seller’s right of recovery.On the premise that the public announcement system has not been established,the third party’s good faith standards should be reasonably raised to limit the abuse of the system of good faith acquisition.The conclusion summarizes the contents of the thesis and puts forward the expectation of constructing a perfect system of the seller’s right of recovery in the future.