This shows that in the retention-of-title transaction, although the buyer has not yet obtained the ownership of the subject matter, he has actually possessed or controlled the subject matter, and has occupied, used and benefited from it. If the seller assumes the responsibility and obligation for the risk, it will lead to the imbalance between the rights and obligations of "the beneficiary does not bear the risk and does not benefit from taking the risk", which violates the principle of fairness in civil law. In addition, in theory, what is closely related to risk is neither ownership nor the status of creditors or debtors, but the possession of the subject matter. Based on this consideration, the United States Uniform Commercial Code also stipulates that the delivery time of retention of ownership is the basis for determining the time standard of risk transfer. Therefore, when delivering the subject matter, the buyer shall not escape the remaining loan payment obligation due to the damage or loss of the subject matter. Under normal circumstances, the risk loss of the subject matter may be caused by natural reasons or man-made reasons. What we are discussing here is only the situation of distributing damages after the man-made loss of the subject matter is infringed by a third party. The accused buyer has the obligation to continue to pay the remaining price to the seller and bear the risk of loss of the subject matter, so it should be allowed to claim damages from the infringer. Pay the balance to the seller after obtaining the compensation price. There are mainly two situations involved here: first, where the subject matter is completely lost, for example, Party A has the right to rent and purchase a building with a value of 5 million yuan in Yuan Xi, and if Party B has paid1500,000 yuan, it has not paid the remaining 3.5 million yuan. And C deliberately burned down the whole house, and the value of the building was only 400 million yuan, while C should give B 4 million yuan as compensation. Because B should bear the risk of damage or loss of the subject matter, it should pay a surplus of $3.5 million and take the remaining $500,000 as the right to expect its loss. If the value of the building is only 3 million yuan due to market fluctuation, at this time, B should pay 500,000 yuan in addition to 3 million yuan to A. The second case is the loss of part of the subject matter, or in the above example, C deliberately set fire to the building, but due to timely rescue, only part of the building was lost. The total loss is 2 million yuan. At this time, after paying 2 million yuan in compensation, Party C may continue to pay the price to obtain the residual ownership of the building. To sum up, the author believes that it is a good policy to study the issue of compensation for damages caused by third party infringement from the perspective of the risk burden of buyers and sellers, which can not only balance the interests of buyers and sellers, but also clarify the relationship between them.

Four. conclusion

The right of expectation in the ownership reservation is the most discussed issue in German civil law. In 1900, hundreds of scholars from Germany, China and France discussed the theory of the right of expectation. Professor Bauer once put forward: "In civil law, there is no problem, such as the right of the buyer to retain ownership, and such a researcher is deeply looking forward to it." 142 thus, it can be seen that the problem of the buyer's expectation right in the ownership reservation is a major difficulty in the theory of civil law. Only before in-depth study can we have a better understanding of the ownership reservation system, give full play to its effectiveness and serve our social and economic life.