摘要
司法实务中,对法定农业水权交易合同的效力认定,存有四种不同的裁判思路,均有可商榷之处。应将法定农业水权定性为用益物权,依据“前位序水权人有权受让后位序水权,而后位序水权人原则上不允许受让前位序水权”之规则,明确其交易的限制。非节余的法定农业水权不允许“逆向交易”,但允许“正向交易”,而节余的法定农业水权则允许“正、逆向交易”。非节余法定农业水权的“逆向交易”合同因损害了社会公共利益,应依据《民法典》第一百五十三条第2款的规定认定合同无效;而“正向交易”合同如系当事人的真实意思表示的,则应认定为有效。节余法定农业水权的“逆向交易”合同如系当事人的真实意思表示,且未损害到社会公共利益的,则应认定为有效。
In the judicial practice,there are four different ways of judging the validity of the legal agricultural water rights transaction contract,and all of them can be discussed. The legal agricultural water right should be defined as usufructuary right,and the restriction of its transaction should be clarified according to the rule that “the prior water right holder has the right to transfer the subsequent water right,and the latter water right holder is not allow ed to transfer the prior water right in principle”.Non-saving legal agricultural water rights do not allow “reverse trading ”,but allow “forw ard trading ”,while saving legal agricultural water rights allow “forw ard and reverse trading ”. The “reverse transaction”contract of non-saving legal agricultural water right should be invalid according to article 153( 2) of Civil Code because it damages the public interest. A “forward transaction”contract shall be deemed valid if it represents the true intention of the parties. If the “reverse transaction ”contract of surplus legal agricultural water right is the true intention expressed by the parties and does not harm the social and public interests,it should be regarded as valid.
出处
《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第9期35-50,共16页
Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)
基金
国家社会科学基金一般项目“内陆干旱区跨行业农业水权交易试点评估及法制化对策研究”(17BFX128)。
关键词
无权处分
效力性强制性规定
社会公共利益
正向交易
逆向交易
Unauthorized disposition
Mandatory provision of effectiveness
Social public interest
Forward trading
Reverse trading
