论文部分内容阅读
我国《票据法》第36条规定了期后背书,但无论是涵义还是法律效力均不同于其他国家和地区票据立法的规定,且条文存在自相矛盾、逻辑混乱的现象;对“期后背书”应作理论解释,而不应局限于文义,故拒绝承兑和拒绝付款后所为的背书也应包括在内;期后背书仅具有普通债权转让的效力;票据立法应就该条作出修改完善,以避免理论和实践的混乱。
Article 36 of China’s “Negotiable Instruments Law” stipulates the endorsement after the expiration of the period, but both the implication and the legal effect are different from those stipulated in the bills of other countries and regions. And there are contradictory and logical chaos in the articles. Endorsement "should be interpreted as a theory, rather than confined to the text, so the endorsement of acceptance and refusal of payment should also be included; after the endorsement of only the effectiveness of ordinary creditor’s rights transfer; Make changes to improve, in order to avoid the confusion of theory and practice.