买卖型担保中流质条款效力的证成与强化

审判实践不应僵化地援引禁止流质规则来无效化买卖型担保中的流质条款，以避免将买卖型担保重新装回典型担保的制度牢笼。禁止流质规则作为强制性预防措施有一定的合理性，在其立法目的必要性日渐丧失的情况下，扩张解释或者类推适用禁止流质规则均不可取，买卖型担保中的流质条款合法有效。对债权人课以清算义务，能够强化流质条款的正当性，从而彻底扫清买卖型担保中流质条款有效化的伦理障碍。担保人应负初步举证责任，只有价值差额超过“24%年利率上限”时才能启动清算，以确保流质条款的效率优势。尽管流质条款与以物抵债具有相似性，但不得以禁止流质规则束缚非买卖型担保中的以物抵债。

The Confirmation and Strengthening of the Validity of the Fluidity Clause in the Sales Guarantee

Trial practice should not rigidly invoke the no-fluidity rule to invalidate the fluidity clause in the sales guarantee, so as to avoid reloading the sales guarantee into the system cage of the typical guarantee. As a compulsory preventive measure, the no-fluidity rule is reasonable to some extent, but the necessity of its legislative purpose has been rapidly shrinking, so it is not advisable to use expansion explanation or analogy application to interpret the no-fluidity rule, and the fluidity clause in the sales guarantee is legal and effective. To impose liquidation obligation on creditors can strengthen the legitimacy of the fluidity clause, so as to thoroughly clear the ethical barriers to the validity of the fluidity clause in the sales guarantee. The guarantor shall bear the initial burden of proof. Only when the value difference exceeds the “24% annual interest rate ceiling”, can the liquidation be started to ensure the efficiency advantage of the fluidity clause. Although the fluidity clause is similar to the debt in kind, the no-fluidity rule should not be used to restrain the debt in kind in the non-sales guarantee.