Bill of exchange - Tegata Koi

It is a legal act performed on a bill of exchange. There are five types of bills of exchange: issuing a bill (issuing a bill), endorsing (the holder of the right on the bill fills in the necessary information on the bill, signs it, and delivers it to the other party), accepting (the payer assumes the obligation to pay the bill amount), guarantee (a bill guarantee, where another person guarantees the debtor's debt on the bill), and participating accepting (when a cause for recourse such as refusal to accept the bill occurs before the maturity of the bill, a third party other than the underwriter assumes the same obligations as the underwriter to prevent recourse). There are three types of promissory notes: issuing, endorsing, and guaranteeing. Of these, issuing is, so to speak, an act of creating a bill, so it is called the basic bill act, and the other four types are performed on the premise of the existence of a basic bill created by issuing, so they are called accessory bill acts. All of them are formal written acts that require a signature or a name and seal. There are conflicting academic theories regarding the essence of bill deeds. The prevailing view is that they are legal acts whose purpose is to incur debts on bills, but there is also a strong view that bill deeds are a dualistic entity consisting of acts of incurring debt on bills and acts of transferring rights.

In order for a bill of exchange to be established, is it enough to create the bill of exchange or is it necessary to deliver the bill? This is a question that has been debated as a "bill of exchange theory". For example, if B steals a bill of exchange created by A before delivering it to the payee and transfers it to a person in good faith, does A have to assume the bill of exchange debt and pay C? The contract theory holds that a bill of exchange is a contract made by the delivery of a bill, so since A has not delivered the instrument, the bill of exchange is not established, and therefore A does not assume the bill of exchange debt. In contrast, the creation theory holds that a bill of exchange debt arises simply by creating the bill of exchange, so naturally A must pay C. However, even under the contract theory, if a signed bill of exchange is transferred to a third party C, there is an apparent fact that there was a contract of delivery, so the signer should assume the bill of exchange debt even without the delivery of the instrument (theory of appearance of right), and as a result, as with the creation theory, the protection of persons in good faith is sought. In addition, according to the view that bill acts are divided into a dualistic structure of debt-bearing acts and rights-transferring acts, while A's liability under the bill is affirmed for debt-bearing purposes based on the creation theory, the transfer of rights under the bill is interpreted as requiring a contract of delivery with the other party.Therefore, since there is no contract of delivery in the case of B, the rights under the bill are not transferred to B, but in the case of C, A's liability under the bill is recognized due to its acquisition in good faith.

A bill of exchange is a type of legal act, but in order to protect the negotiability of bills of exchange, the principle of independence of bill of exchange is recognized. In other words, bill of exchanges made on the same bill are effective independently of each other, and even if one bill of exchange is substantially invalid (for example, if a bill of exchange is cancelled by a person with limited legal capacity or if the bill is forged), this does not affect the validity of the other bill of exchanges. In addition, the general principles of the Civil Code regarding capacity, manifestation of intention, agency, etc. are also applied to bill of exchanges, but some modifications may be made to protect the negotiability of bills of exchange.

[Toda Shuzo]

Source: Shogakukan Encyclopedia Nipponica About Encyclopedia Nipponica Information | Legend

手形上になされる法律行為のことで、為替(かわせ)手形については手形の振出し（手形の発行）・裏書（証券上の権利者がその証券に所要事項を記載して署名し、これを相手方に交付すること）・引受け（支払人が手形金額の支払義務を負担すること）・保証（手形保証、手形債務者の債務を他者が手形上で保証すること）・参加引受け（手形の満期前に引受拒絶などの遡求(そきゅう)原因が生じた際、遡求を阻止するために引受人以外の第三者が引受人と同一の義務を負担すること）の5種があり、約束手形については振出し・裏書・保証の3種がある。このうち、振出しはいわば手形を創造する行為であるから、これを基本的手形行為といい、ほかの4種は、振出しによって作成された基本手形の存在を前提としてなされるから、これを付属的手形行為という。いずれも、署名または記名捺印(なついん)を要件とする要式の書面行為である。手形行為の本質については学説の対立があり、通説は手形上の債務負担を目的とする法律行為と解しているが、手形行為を手形債務負担行為と権利移転行為とに分けて二元的に構成する見解も有力である。

　手形行為が成立するためには、手形証券の作成だけで十分であるのか、手形の交付行為も必要であるのかにつき、「手形理論」の問題として論ぜられている。たとえば、Aが作成した手形を受取人に交付前にBが盗取し、これを善意者Cに譲渡した場合に、Aが手形債務を負担しCに支払いをしなければならないかにつき、契約説は、手形行為は手形の授受によりなされる契約であるから、Aは証券の交付をしていない以上手形行為は成立せず、したがってAは手形債務を負担しないと解する。これに対し、創造説は、手形の作成だけで手形債務が発生すると解するから、Aは当然Cに対し支払わなければならないことになる。もっとも、契約説によっても、署名された手形が第三者Cに譲渡されれば、外観上、交付契約があったとの表見的事実が存在するので、署名者は証券の交付がなくても手形債務を負うと解すべきであるとして（権利外観理論）、結果的に創造説と同じく、善意者の保護が図られている。なお、手形行為を債務負担行為と権利移転行為に分けて二元的に構成する見解によれば、債務負担については創造説によりAの手形上の責任を肯定したうえで、手形上の権利の移転については相手方との交付契約を要すると解するから、Bについては交付契約がない以上、手形上の権利はBに移転しないが、Cについては、善意取得によりAの手形責任を認めることになる。

　手形行為は法律行為の一種であるが、手形の流通性を保護するために、手形行為独立の原則が認められている。すなわち、同一の手形上になされた手形行為はそれぞれ独立的にその効力を生じ、ある手形行為が実質的に無効（たとえば制限行為能力者による手形の振出しが取り消された場合や手形の偽造など）であっても、そのためにほかの手形行為の効力になんら影響を及ぼさない。また、手形行為についても、能力・意思表示・代理などに関する民法の一般原則が適用されるが、手形の流通性保護のために、若干の修正が加えられることもある。

［戸田修三］

出典　小学館　日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)日本大百科全書(ニッポニカ)について　情報 | 凡例