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.

Chinese:

This shows that in the transaction of ownership reservation, although the buyer has not yet obtained the ownership of the subject matter, it has actually possessed or controlled the things, as well as the possession, use and income of the subject matter. If the seller bears the risk responsibility and obligation, this will lead to the imbalance of rights and obligations of "the beneficiary does not bear the risk and does not benefit from it", which violates the civil law and the principle of fairness. In addition, there is a close relationship between theory and risk. There is no ownership or the status of creditor or debtor, but possession of the subject matter. Based on this consideration, the United States Uniform Commercial Code also stipulates that the delivery time of retained ownership is the standard for sale, and the risk transfer of time standard is determined on this basis. Therefore, when the subject matter is delivered, the buyer shall not damage or lose the subject matter to avoid the remaining payment. In general, the risk of loss of the subject matter may be due to natural reasons or man-made reasons. Our discussion here is limited to the compensation distribution of the third party after the man-made loss of the subject matter. Since the buyer continues to pay the seller's remaining obligations and bears the risk of loss of the subject matter, it should be allowed to claim tort damages. Paying the seller's balance with the compensated price mainly involves two situations: first, in all losses of the subject matter, for example, in a transaction worth 5 million yuan in which Xi 'an Construction Company has the right to rent and purchase, if B has paid15 million yuan, it will not pay the remaining 3.5 million yuan. C deliberately burned down the whole house, and the value of the building was only $40 billion, while C asked B to pay 4 million yuan as the subject matter of compensation. Because B should bear the risk of damage and loss, it should have a surplus of $3.5 million, and the remaining $50 million has the right to expect their losses. If the construction is only 300 million yuan due to the fluctuation of market value, at this time, in addition to 300 million yuan, Party B should also pay 500,000 yuan. The second case is the loss of the subject matter, or in the above example, C deliberately set fire to the building, but only part of the loss was caused by timely rescue. Total loss of the building. Calculated to be 200 million yuan, at this time, it will provide compensation of CB 2 million yuan, and may continue to pay the price to obtain the construction of residual ownership. In a word, I think it is a good policy for a third party to study the issue of damages from the perspective of the risk burden of buyers and sellers. They can balance the interests of all parties, the interests of buyers and sellers, but they are also very clear about their relationship.

Fourth, conclusion.

In German civil law, the buyer has the right to keep the expectation of ownership. Most of the problems discussed in 1900 come from Germany. Since the implementation in China and France, the buyer has the right to expect hundreds of scholars to enrich their theories. Professor Bauer said: "In civil law, there are no problems such as the rights of the buyer who retains ownership, which researchers are deeply looking forward to." 142 this shows that one of the main difficulties of the civil law theory of the buyer's expectation of the right of ownership reservation is to study it deeply, and then have a deeper understanding of the ideological ownership reservation system, so as to better play the benefits of this system and serve our social and economic life.

Or look here: /news8/gongxue.asp? Path = 1 17730