[1]钱玉文,吴 炯.论共享单车押金的性质及其法律规制[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2018,19(04):1-14.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2018.04.001]
　Qian Yuwen,Wu Jion.On the Nature and Legal Regulations of the Deposit of Shared Bikes[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2018,19(04):1-14.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2018.04.001]
点击复制

论共享单车押金的性质及其法律规制()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第19卷
期数:
2018年04期
页码:
1-14
栏目:
法学研究
出版日期:
2018-07-28

文章信息/Info

Title:
On the Nature and Legal Regulations of the Deposit of Shared Bikes
作者:
钱玉文; 吴 炯
Author(s):
Qian Yuwen; Wu Jion
关键词:
共享单车;  押金性质;  动产质权;  法律规制
Keywords:
shared bikes;  nature of the deposit;  chattel pledge;  legal regulation
分类号:
D912.29
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2018.04.001
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
共享单车企业接连倒闭与共享单车企业挪用用户押金急速进行扩张密切相关,而相关法律法规以及各级政府为规制共享单车而制定的规范性文件都没能明确押金的法律性质,最终导致押金退还无望。如果押金能够特定化,则押金给付实现的是动产质权担保,未能特定化,则押金给付是一种让与担保。出于国家与消费者利益的实践考量,共享单车押金性质需转化为动产质权标的,实现押金性质之“变”。对共享单车押金的法律规制需要兼顾多方利益,应该将适度干预原则作为规制押金的基本原则,有效监管现有共享单车押金账户,确保押金最终能够返还给消费者。
Abstract:
The successive failures of shared bikes enterprises are closely related to their rapid expansion strategies, which were implemented by embezzling users’ deposit, while relevant laws and regulations as well as the normative documents targeted at shared bikes drafted by governments at all levels have all failed to define the legal nature of the deposit, which eventually leads to the failure of deposit refund. If the deposit can be specialized, then the paid money can be guaranteed by chattel pledge, if it cannot be specialized, then the deposit belongs to alienation guarantee. For the consideration of the national and customer interest, the nature of the deposit of shared bikes should be transformed into chattel pledge object to shift the nature of the deposit. The laws and regulations established for the deposit should give consideration to the interest of multiple parties and the principle of appropriate intervention should be employed as a basic principle for managing the deposit so as to effectively monitor the current deposit-paid accounts and ensure that the deposit can be refunded to the customer at last.

参考文献/References:


[1]KOOPMAN C,MITCHELL M D,THIERER A D. The sharing economy and consumer protection regulation:the case for policy change[J]. The journal of business,entrepreneurship and the law,2015,8(2):530-544.
[2]刘庆华. ofo向阿里抵押借款17.7亿,拉开共享单车竞合游戏序幕[N]. 金融投资报,2018-03-08(2).
[3]傅光云. 摩拜花落美团,共享单车终成巨头的游戏[N]. 国际金融报,2018-04-09(11).
[4]徐宏. 共享单车“押金池”现象的刑法学评价[J]. 法学,2017(12):124-132.
[5]王泽鉴. 民法学说与判例研究:第4册[M]. 北京:北京大学出版社,2009:80.
[6]崔建远. “担保”辨——基于担保泛化弊端严重的思考[J]. 政治与法律,2015(12):109-123.
[7]ERIK F G. The shadow banking system and its legal origins[J]. Social science electronic publishing,2012:1-56.
[8]薛启明. 中国法语境下的动产让与担保:体系定位与功能反思[J]. 法学论坛,2016,31(2):38-44.
[9]谢在全. 民法物权论:下册 [M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,1999:970.
[10]温世扬,廖焕国. 物权法通论[M]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2005:696.
[11]鲍尔·施蒂尔纳. 德国物权法:下册[M]. 申卫星,王洪亮,译,北京:法律出版社,2006:599.
[12]XIAO Y P,LIANG W W. Property rights in intermediated securities under Chinese law[J]. Frontiers of law in China,2012,7(4):554-563.
[13]祝铭山. 借款担保合同纠纷[M]. 北京:中国法制出版社,2003:30.
[14]程啸. 担保物权研究[M]. 北京:中国人民大学出版社,2017:488-489.
[15]黄松有. 担保法司法解释实例解释[M]. 北京:人民法院出版社,2006:415.
[16]岑雅衍. 保证金担保性质浅探[J]. 上海金融高等专科学校学报,2000(4):43-45.
[17]徐化耿. 保证金账户担保的法律性质再认识——以《担保法司法解释》第85条为切入点[J]. 北京社会科学,2015(11):109-116.
[18]岳会玉,王朋艳,徐一民. 共享单车会计核算研究[J]. 现代经济信息,2017(3):239.
[19]STEMLER A. Betwist and between:regulating the shared economy[J]. Fordham urban law journal,2016,34:31-70.
[20]ZHENG F Y,HE P,ELENA B,et al. Customer preference and station network in the London bike share system[J]. Columbia business school research paper,2018:1-51.
[21]CZARNEZKI J J. New York city rules!Regulatory models for environmental and public health[J]. Hastings law journal, 2015,66:1621-1660.
[22]陈云良,陈婷. 银监会法律性质研究[J]. 法律科学,2012,30(1):74-83.
[23]朱大旗,邱潮斌. 关于中国人民银行与银监会职责分工的探讨——兼评《中国人民银行法》的修订与《银行业监督管理法》的制定[J]. 甘肃政法学院学报,2004(2):6-13.
[24]朱大旗. 金融法[M].3版.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2015:106.
[25]翟业虎,刘田鑫. 共享单车租赁的法律问题[J]. 扬州大学学报(人文社会科学版),2017,21(4):39-46.
[26]陆永棣. 从立案审查到立案登记:法院在社会转型中的司法角色[J]. 中国法学,2016(2):204-224.
[27]钱玉文. 消费者权的经济法表达——兼论对《民法典》编纂的启示[J]. 法商研究,2017,34(1):143-152.
[28]薛姣. 论所有权的限制[M]. 北京:中国政法大学出版社,2017:133.

相似文献/References:

[1]刘建刚,翁雅敏.共享单车治理的策略选择和动态演化研究[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2020,21(04):71.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.04.008]
　Liu Jiangang,Weng Yamin.On the Strategy Choice and Dynamic Evolution of Shared Bicycle Governance[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2020,21(04):71.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2020.04.008]

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:钱玉文,法学博士,常州大学史良法学院教授; 吴炯,常州大学史良法学院硕士研究生。
基金项目:2018年度国家哲学社会科学基金一般项目“金融消费安全的公私合作规制研究”(18BFX138); 江苏高校哲学社会科学重点研究项目“网约车法律规制效果的实证研究”(2017ZDIXM005)。
更新日期/Last Update: 2018-07-28