Research On The Effectiveness Of Presentment Before The Due Date Of Electronic Bills

In 2009,the electronic commercial bill system(hereinafter referred to as "ECDS")was officially put into operation,together with the measures for the administration of electronic commercial bill business(hereinafter referred to as the measures for the administration of electronic bill)issued by the people’s Bank of China,they have jointly promoted the modernization of China’s commercial bill.For more than ten years,electronic commercial bill(hereinafter referred to as "electronic bill")has become a financial attribute.Since then,traditional bill disputes,such as public notice disputes,have ceased to exist due to the change of bill carrier,and disputes such as Bill damage compensation,Bill return claim and confirmation of bill invalidity have gradually decreased.However,if the holder does not change the operating habits of thesis bills and apply them to electronic bill transactions,it may occur that the holder cannot enjoy complete recourse in ECDS and instead files a lawsuit.If the judicial organ fails to correctly apply the rules of electronic bill to regulate,there may be a conflict between the judicial judgment and the legal norms of electronic bill.Among them,there are two diametrically opposite determinations about the effectiveness of the presentment of electronic bills in the judicial trial.The legal effect of presentment before the time of electronic bill first needs to clarify the definition of electronic bill and its characteristics different from traditional thesis bill.Electronic bill takes electronic data as the carrier,and the bill actor completes a series of bill acts relying on ECDS.Secondly,when determining whether the holder has the right of recourse in the second order,it should be considered that ECDS does not distinguish the status of the bill presented before the installment and after the expiration.This situation will lead to the holder being unable to exercise the right of recourse in the electronic bill system when the acceptor or payer fails to respond.Finally,when determining whether the presentment of electronic bill has positive effect,we should also consider the balance of interests between the holder and its many predecessors,including the drawer and acceptor.There is a dispute over the validity of the presentment of e-bills,which leads to the opposite determination in the judicial trial.The main reasons are: the blank of the bill law,the ambiguity in the expression of Article 59 of the measures for the administration of e-bills regulating the presentment of e-bills,and the bill status shown by ECDS does not distinguish between the presentment of payment before the due date and the presentment of payment after the due date.In view of the above reasons,combined with the basic theory of bills,this thesis analyzes the feasibility of offline recourse of electronic bills,and puts forward targeted suggestions.In order to clarify the validity of the presentment of electronic bill and unify the judicial judgment,firstly,the bill law should clarify the legal status of electronic bill and stipulate the presentment of electronic bill;Secondly,ECDS should distinguish the status of electronic bills before and after the maturity date,so as to remove the obstacles for judges to identify the status of bills.In addition,the existence of presentment of electronic bills has its rationality and necessity.Improving the content of Article 59 of the measures for the administration of electronic bills and eliminating the ambiguity between "may" and "should" are important means to resolve the existing relevant controversial issues.