彩礼返还之规定的法律思考
|
摘要
彩礼是中国独特的一种社会文化现象,根植于中国传统文化之中,有深刻的社会历史文化根源,是中国几千年来的一种婚嫁风俗。2004年4月1日最高人民法院《关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释(二)》第十条的规定对彩礼问题做出了具体规定,但对理论界和实务界争论的彩礼法律属性问题没有确定,国内外对于彩礼性质也存在着不同学说,彩礼返还在司法适用上也存在诸多疑难等。本文从介绍彩礼的含义出发,通过分析彩礼的历史沿革及彩礼的相关规定,对其法律属性进行研讨,得出了在现代法律体系中彩礼的法律属性应是附解除条件的赠与,之后对彩礼返还在司法上的适用进行评析,最后,针对彩礼存在法律用语不规范,诉讼主体及诉讼时效不明确,彩礼返还缺乏规范的统一执法尺度等问题提出了对彩礼返还之规定的完善建议,认为彩礼返还应明确诉讼主体及诉讼时效,充分发挥二审法院的监督指导职能,规范基层法院处理彩礼的执法尺度等完善措施。
Based on analyzing and discussing the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin, this article analyzed and proved the regulation on betrothal gifts to return and its law attribute, made further research by mainly focusing on judicial applicability of regulation and lacking of return of betrothal gifts and how to perfect it. The main content of each part is as follows:
This first part is on the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin. This part mainly introduced the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin. Firstly, the author briefly introduced the meaning of betrothal gifts. Betrothal gifts is also called bride-price or down payment, now called betrothal gifts in most cases. It originates from system of six ceremonies of betrothal & marriage. Definition of it is not completely same from different scholars. By referring to opinions of various scholars, the author defines it to be the payment groom or his family makes to the bride or her family during the process of concluding a marriage. To define the meaning of betrothal gifts accurately, we should also distinguish it from asking for money items by marriage and general present upon wedding contract. Betrothal gift is presentation from true meaning while asking from money items by marriage is a kind of misuse of marital autonomy, in which presentation of money items to the other party is forced and a kind of behavior of one party. The difference between betrothal gifts and general presentation upon marriage is the intention providing betrothal gifts is very clear rather than general exchange of gifts. The purpose of betrothal gifts is to conclude marriage while the amount of general presentation upon marriage is less and voluntary without paying particular attention to ceremony and any condition, under which beneficial has not obligation to return. Betrothal gift has a long historical, dictation of which comes from selected gift Western Zhou more than 3000 years ago. Dynasties of Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing all had corresponding regulation to it. In ancient times, it appeared in way of constitutional law. However, after new China was established, in order to put an end to purchase marriage and carry out the principle of freedom of marriage, derecognize wedding contract, betrothal gift is also not advocated, which appears in way of folk custom all the time. There is no state regulation on it. However, with the reform and open-up, change of society, flow of population and trend of value pluralism, in 2004 the state regulated betrothal gifts in form of judicial interpretation, which makes betrothal gifts in formal legal system of the state from folk custom again. That this interpretation appears brings convenience for trial practice, however, it also suffers from lots of criticism and makes it more difficult for judge to deal with such kind of problems.
This second part is evaluation of betrothal gifts to return and its law attribute.
This author firstly analyzed the problem on regulation of betrothal gifts to return from interpretation of civil judicature point of view, introduced concrete regulation on betrothal gifts in details and also made evaluation and analysis to it. After that, the author explained betrothal gifts from criminal law aspect-the two criminals and accusations relevant to betrothal gifts which are crime of fraud from article 266 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China and crime of encroachment from article 276 of same law. Because there is no legal rule on law attribute of betrothal gifts, there are many disputes in theory without uniform understanding. There are about 6 opinions in theoretical circle, the author agrees with the sixth that is betrothal gift is a presenting behavior with termination conditions. In the article, the author also made corresponding evaluation and analysis to other five opinions. Betrothal gift to return is based on dissolution of marriage. Presenting behavior happens once one party pays the other party betrothal gifts that is it happens as long as this condition is set up, after wedding contract is dissolved, the legal base under which receiver continues to possesses betrothal gifts disappears, based on the principle of fairness in Civil Law, it is reasonable only after the property is recovered to the status before wedding. Receiver should return betrothal gifts to donor. If receiver refuses and continues to possess betrothal gifts, this is unjustified enrichment according to Civil Law. Receiver should return all unjustified enrichment back.
The third part is about the judicial applicability of betrothal gifts to return in our country. In this part, the author discussed it in several aspects. 1, Principal part of betrothal gifts to return in justice procedure: the author thinks it is not the same in trial practice, in which there is very confusing. It is necessary to regulated it. 2, The scope of betrothal gifts to return: now there is no regulation in current law and judicial interpretation. The author thinks that we should grasp from constitutive feature of betrothal gifts to see if we treat it as betrothal gifts that is based on if wedding contract is concluded or not. We need grasp based on three features such as local custom, value of provided property and local living level. Besides, it is necessary to make it clear the case in which betrothal gifts will not be returned or will be returned partly after careful consideration in practice. 3, Action limitation of betrothal gifts to return: for there is no provision on it in this judicial interpretation, there are problems in reality on if common or special action limitation is applicable on betrothal gifts to return and how to start counting. The author thinks for right protection to betrothal gifts to return, common action limitation should be applicable, regarding when to start counting on concrete action limitation, we should do by dividing it into several cases. 4, Evidence verification: the author thinks we should not be too strict to both parties in actual trial. In the case of such type, proving standard should follow principle of highly probable. As long as the evidence listed by the part makes the judge quite believe the legal truth of the case and can eliminate other reasonable doubt, it can be verified as truth objectively.
The fourth part talks about lacking and perfection of provision on betrothal gifts to return in our country.
On April 1, 2004, Explanations-2 on Several Issues Concerning‘Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China’by Supreme People’s Court was performed, which made clear regulation on betrothal gifts to return. Article 10 of this interpretation unified judging yardstick on the dispute of betrothal gifts and was positive to solve cases on dispute of betrothal gifts. However, this rule is too rigid and depending on principle. Its law terms are not normative. Principal part in justice procedure and action limitation is not clear. Uniform yardstick is not there on betrothal gifts to return. For this, it should made clear legally. Time should be made as use condition of betrothal gifts to return. Principal part in justice procedure and action limitation should be made clear and function of monitoring and guiding of court of second instance should be fully exerted. Corresponding instruction in this local scope is issued to make it have uniform law enforcement yardstick on betrothal gifts to return, only by which dispute can be stopped and case can be ended. It has realistic meaning in maintaining current social stability and harmony.
Based on analyzing and discussing the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin, this article analyzed and proved the regulation on betrothal gifts to return and its law attribute, made further research by mainly focusing on judicial applicability of regulation and lacking of return of betrothal gifts and how to perfect it. The main content of each part is as follows:
This first part is on the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin. This part mainly introduced the meaning of betrothal gifts and its historical origin. Firstly, the author briefly introduced the meaning of betrothal gifts. Betrothal gifts is also called bride-price or down payment, now called betrothal gifts in most cases. It originates from system of six ceremonies of betrothal & marriage. Definition of it is not completely same from different scholars. By referring to opinions of various scholars, the author defines it to be the payment groom or his family makes to the bride or her family during the process of concluding a marriage. To define the meaning of betrothal gifts accurately, we should also distinguish it from asking for money items by marriage and general present upon wedding contract. Betrothal gift is presentation from true meaning while asking from money items by marriage is a kind of misuse of marital autonomy, in which presentation of money items to the other party is forced and a kind of behavior of one party. The difference between betrothal gifts and general presentation upon marriage is the intention providing betrothal gifts is very clear rather than general exchange of gifts. The purpose of betrothal gifts is to conclude marriage while the amount of general presentation upon marriage is less and voluntary without paying particular attention to ceremony and any condition, under which beneficial has not obligation to return. Betrothal gift has a long historical, dictation of which comes from selected gift Western Zhou more than 3000 years ago. Dynasties of Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming and Qing all had corresponding regulation to it. In ancient times, it appeared in way of constitutional law. However, after new China was established, in order to put an end to purchase marriage and carry out the principle of freedom of marriage, derecognize wedding contract, betrothal gift is also not advocated, which appears in way of folk custom all the time. There is no state regulation on it. However, with the reform and open-up, change of society, flow of population and trend of value pluralism, in 2004 the state regulated betrothal gifts in form of judicial interpretation, which makes betrothal gifts in formal legal system of the state from folk custom again. That this interpretation appears brings convenience for trial practice, however, it also suffers from lots of criticism and makes it more difficult for judge to deal with such kind of problems.
This second part is evaluation of betrothal gifts to return and its law attribute.
This author firstly analyzed the problem on regulation of betrothal gifts to return from interpretation of civil judicature point of view, introduced concrete regulation on betrothal gifts in details and also made evaluation and analysis to it. After that, the author explained betrothal gifts from criminal law aspect-the two criminals and accusations relevant to betrothal gifts which are crime of fraud from article 266 of Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China and crime of encroachment from article 276 of same law. Because there is no legal rule on law attribute of betrothal gifts, there are many disputes in theory without uniform understanding. There are about 6 opinions in theoretical circle, the author agrees with the sixth that is betrothal gift is a presenting behavior with termination conditions. In the article, the author also made corresponding evaluation and analysis to other five opinions. Betrothal gift to return is based on dissolution of marriage. Presenting behavior happens once one party pays the other party betrothal gifts that is it happens as long as this condition is set up, after wedding contract is dissolved, the legal base under which receiver continues to possesses betrothal gifts disappears, based on the principle of fairness in Civil Law, it is reasonable only after the property is recovered to the status before wedding. Receiver should return betrothal gifts to donor. If receiver refuses and continues to possess betrothal gifts, this is unjustified enrichment according to Civil Law. Receiver should return all unjustified enrichment back.
The third part is about the judicial applicability of betrothal gifts to return in our country. In this part, the author discussed it in several aspects. 1, Principal part of betrothal gifts to return in justice procedure: the author thinks it is not the same in trial practice, in which there is very confusing. It is necessary to regulated it. 2, The scope of betrothal gifts to return: now there is no regulation in current law and judicial interpretation. The author thinks that we should grasp from constitutive feature of betrothal gifts to see if we treat it as betrothal gifts that is based on if wedding contract is concluded or not. We need grasp based on three features such as local custom, value of provided property and local living level. Besides, it is necessary to make it clear the case in which betrothal gifts will not be returned or will be returned partly after careful consideration in practice. 3, Action limitation of betrothal gifts to return: for there is no provision on it in this judicial interpretation, there are problems in reality on if common or special action limitation is applicable on betrothal gifts to return and how to start counting. The author thinks for right protection to betrothal gifts to return, common action limitation should be applicable, regarding when to start counting on concrete action limitation, we should do by dividing it into several cases. 4, Evidence verification: the author thinks we should not be too strict to both parties in actual trial. In the case of such type, proving standard should follow principle of highly probable. As long as the evidence listed by the part makes the judge quite believe the legal truth of the case and can eliminate other reasonable doubt, it can be verified as truth objectively.
The fourth part talks about lacking and perfection of provision on betrothal gifts to return in our country.
On April 1, 2004, Explanations-2 on Several Issues Concerning‘Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China’by Supreme People’s Court was performed, which made clear regulation on betrothal gifts to return. Article 10 of this interpretation unified judging yardstick on the dispute of betrothal gifts and was positive to solve cases on dispute of betrothal gifts. However, this rule is too rigid and depending on principle. Its law terms are not normative. Principal part in justice procedure and action limitation is not clear. Uniform yardstick is not there on betrothal gifts to return. For this, it should made clear legally. Time should be made as use condition of betrothal gifts to return. Principal part in justice procedure and action limitation should be made clear and function of monitoring and guiding of court of second instance should be fully exerted. Corresponding instruction in this local scope is issued to make it have uniform law enforcement yardstick on betrothal gifts to return, only by which dispute can be stopped and case can be ended. It has realistic meaning in maintaining current social stability and harmony.
引文
[1]张庆国:《彩礼的社会学分析》,《中国农村研究》2004年3月15日。
[2]转引自白莉:《陇东农村彩礼研究》,《西北师范大学学报》2005年,第9页。
[3]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[4]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[5]杨大文:《亲属法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第78页。
[6]李洪文、何斌:《婚约聘礼返还问题的法律思考》,《湖湘论坛》2006年第2期,第75页。
[7]黄松有主编:《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释(二)的理解与适用》,人民法院出版社2004年版,第10页。
[8]李洪祥:《彩礼返还之规定的社会性别分析》,《法学杂志》2005年第2期,第82页。
[9]黄龙飞:《浅析婚约彩礼纠纷》,《甘肃农业》2004年第1期,第85页。
[10]张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社1997年第7期,第185页。
[11]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[12]杨大文:《亲属法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第78页。
[13]崔平、郭先美:《试析婚约解除后赠与物归属问题》,《兰州大学学报》2006年第5期,第163页。
[14]史尚宽:《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年第1版,第158页。
[15]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[16]转引自黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[17] [日]栗生武夫:《婚姻法之现代化》,胡长清译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第43页。
[18]祝铭山:《婚姻家庭纠纷》,中国法制出版社2003年版,第59页。
[19]史尚宽:《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第158页。
[20]王泽鉴著:《民法总则》,中国政法大学2001年版,第37页。
[21]王红亚:《对涉及婚约彩礼纠纷案件自由裁量权的规范》,“中国民商法律网”,http//www.civillaw.com.cn,2008年3月7日。
[22]向芳:《对新婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条程序法的思考》,《成都大学学报》2005年第1期,第40页。
[23]陈群峰:《彩礼返还规则探析——质疑最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条第一款》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2008年第3期,第102页。
[24]陈群峰:《彩礼返还规则探析——质疑最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条第一款》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2008年第3期,第102页。
[25]王军著:《浅谈规范哈萨克族离婚案件彩礼退还执法尺度》,《中共伊犁州委党校学报》2002年第1期,第56页。
1.王泽鉴著:《债法原理(二)》,中国政法大学2002年第1版。
2.王利明著:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社2003年第1版。
3.曾代伟著:《中国法制史》,法律出版社2001年第1版。
4.齐文远著:《刑法学》,法律出版社1997年第1版。
5.曹诗权著:《婚姻家庭继承法》,中国法制出版社2002年第2版。
6.祝铭山著:《婚姻家庭纠纷》,中国法制出版社2003年第1版。
7.刘素萍著:《婚姻法学参考资料》,中国人民大学出版社1989年第1版。
8.许莉著:《婚姻家庭继承法案例评析》,上海人民出版社2000年第1版。
9.王金玲著:《婚姻法案例知识读本》,经济管理出版社2001年第1版。
10.李国光著:《最高人民法院<关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定>的理解与适用》,中国法制出版社2002年第1版。
11.李银河著:《中国婚姻家庭及其变迁》,黑龙江人民出版社1995年第1版。
12.[日]北川姜太郎著:《日本民法体系》,科学出版社1995年第1版。
13.日本荣有泉子:《日本民法、亲属法》,北京工商出版社2001年第1版。
14.夏吟兰:《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版。
15.梁慧星:《民法总论》,北京法律出版社1996年第1版。
16.李丽著:《婚姻法实务与案例解析》,中国工商出版社1999年第2版。
17.李洪祥、吕大可:《婚姻法律制度研究》,长春出版社2001年第1版。
18.陈爱萍、姬新江主编:《婚姻家庭法学》,中国检察出版社2006年第1版。
19.郭丽红:《冲突与平衡——婚姻法实践问题研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版。
20.余延满:《亲属法原论》,法律出版社2007年第1版。
1.林德华:《彩礼返还纠纷应认定为附条件赠与》,《律师世界》1994年第2期。
2.赵振亚、高兵:《小议婚约财产纠纷的认定与处理》,《中国法学教育》2003年第3期。
3.张宽明:《57件彩礼案零上访》,《人民法院法院报》2007年4月,第2版。
4.李洪文、何斌:《婚约聘礼返还问题的法律思考》,《湖湘论坛》2006年第2期。
5.戴东雄:《违反婚约损害赔偿之过失与礼物返还》,《法学丛刊》1994年第6期。
6.熊进光:《婚约法律问题研究》,《河北法学》2003年第5期。
7.彭江红:《对离婚损害赔偿制度的探讨》,《法律适用》2002年3月第4期。
8.崔平、郭先美:《试析婚姻解除后赠与物归属问题》,《兰州大学学报》2006年5月。
9.李洪祥:《彩礼返还之规定的社会性别分析》,《法学杂志》2005年第2期。
10.于晓青:《传统文化中的彩礼及其流变》,《河南省政治管理干部学院学报》2008年第2期。
11.许珂:《规则下的裁量》,《南通航运职业技术学院学报》2007年第6期。
12.谢慧:《婚约财产流转之分析》,《山东大学学报》2006年第5期。
13.孙勇:《浅析解除婚约后财物纠纷的处理》,《辽宁师范大学学报》2004年第3期。
14.马强:《论婚约解除后赠与物归属问题与研究》,《法律适用》2000年第2期。
15.王军:《浅谈规范哈萨克族离婚案件彩礼退还的执法尺度》,《中共伊犁洲委党校学报》2002年第1期。
16.贺光辉:《婚姻解除后的法律后果探析》,《湖北社会科学》2005年第12期。
17.刘清生:《论婚约目的与彩礼返还》,《中国法学会婚姻法学研究会2007年年会论文集》2007年第1期。
18.黄娟:《“彩礼”返还的基础从规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期。
19.魏国学:《转型期的中国农村人口高彩礼婚姻——基于经济学视角的研究》,《中国人口科学》2008年第4期。
20.王丽娜:《婚约财产纠纷中彩礼性质探析》,《江苏经济报》2005年第3期。
21.李志浩:《利益平衡下的彩礼返还制度研究——兼论嫁妆的返还》,《十堰职业技术学院学报》2008年第6期。
22.张学军:《彩礼返还制度研究——兼论禁止买卖婚姻和禁止借婚姻索取财物》,《中外法学》2006年第5期。
23.王艳茹:《婚约财产纠纷的性质认定及处理原则》,《黑龙江科技信息》2008年第25期。
24.何志:《彩礼返还应具备的条件——南阳中院审理韩英上诉齐现金返还彩礼纠纷案》,《人民法院报》2008年,第5版。
25.李朴:《婚约解除后彩礼纠纷的处理》,《安康学院学报》2008年第6期。
[2]转引自白莉:《陇东农村彩礼研究》,《西北师范大学学报》2005年,第9页。
[3]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[4]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[5]杨大文:《亲属法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第78页。
[6]李洪文、何斌:《婚约聘礼返还问题的法律思考》,《湖湘论坛》2006年第2期,第75页。
[7]黄松有主编:《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国婚姻法>若干问题的解释(二)的理解与适用》,人民法院出版社2004年版,第10页。
[8]李洪祥:《彩礼返还之规定的社会性别分析》,《法学杂志》2005年第2期,第82页。
[9]黄龙飞:《浅析婚约彩礼纠纷》,《甘肃农业》2004年第1期,第85页。
[10]张明楷著:《刑法学》,法律出版社1997年第7期,第185页。
[11]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[12]杨大文:《亲属法》,法律出版社1997年第1版,第78页。
[13]崔平、郭先美:《试析婚约解除后赠与物归属问题》,《兰州大学学报》2006年第5期,第163页。
[14]史尚宽:《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年第1版,第158页。
[15]黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[16]转引自黄娟:《彩礼返还的基础及规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期,第162页。
[17] [日]栗生武夫:《婚姻法之现代化》,胡长清译,中国政法大学出版社2003年版,第43页。
[18]祝铭山:《婚姻家庭纠纷》,中国法制出版社2003年版,第59页。
[19]史尚宽:《亲属法论》,中国政法大学出版社2000年版,第158页。
[20]王泽鉴著:《民法总则》,中国政法大学2001年版,第37页。
[21]王红亚:《对涉及婚约彩礼纠纷案件自由裁量权的规范》,“中国民商法律网”,http//www.civillaw.com.cn,2008年3月7日。
[22]向芳:《对新婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条程序法的思考》,《成都大学学报》2005年第1期,第40页。
[23]陈群峰:《彩礼返还规则探析——质疑最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条第一款》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2008年第3期,第102页。
[24]陈群峰:《彩礼返还规则探析——质疑最高人民法院婚姻法司法解释(二)第十条第一款》,《云南大学学报(法学版)》2008年第3期,第102页。
[25]王军著:《浅谈规范哈萨克族离婚案件彩礼退还执法尺度》,《中共伊犁州委党校学报》2002年第1期,第56页。
1.王泽鉴著:《债法原理(二)》,中国政法大学2002年第1版。
2.王利明著:《民法总则研究》,中国人民大学出版社2003年第1版。
3.曾代伟著:《中国法制史》,法律出版社2001年第1版。
4.齐文远著:《刑法学》,法律出版社1997年第1版。
5.曹诗权著:《婚姻家庭继承法》,中国法制出版社2002年第2版。
6.祝铭山著:《婚姻家庭纠纷》,中国法制出版社2003年第1版。
7.刘素萍著:《婚姻法学参考资料》,中国人民大学出版社1989年第1版。
8.许莉著:《婚姻家庭继承法案例评析》,上海人民出版社2000年第1版。
9.王金玲著:《婚姻法案例知识读本》,经济管理出版社2001年第1版。
10.李国光著:《最高人民法院<关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定>的理解与适用》,中国法制出版社2002年第1版。
11.李银河著:《中国婚姻家庭及其变迁》,黑龙江人民出版社1995年第1版。
12.[日]北川姜太郎著:《日本民法体系》,科学出版社1995年第1版。
13.日本荣有泉子:《日本民法、亲属法》,北京工商出版社2001年第1版。
14.夏吟兰:《美国现代婚姻家庭制度》,中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版。
15.梁慧星:《民法总论》,北京法律出版社1996年第1版。
16.李丽著:《婚姻法实务与案例解析》,中国工商出版社1999年第2版。
17.李洪祥、吕大可:《婚姻法律制度研究》,长春出版社2001年第1版。
18.陈爱萍、姬新江主编:《婚姻家庭法学》,中国检察出版社2006年第1版。
19.郭丽红:《冲突与平衡——婚姻法实践问题研究》,人民法院出版社2005年第1版。
20.余延满:《亲属法原论》,法律出版社2007年第1版。
1.林德华:《彩礼返还纠纷应认定为附条件赠与》,《律师世界》1994年第2期。
2.赵振亚、高兵:《小议婚约财产纠纷的认定与处理》,《中国法学教育》2003年第3期。
3.张宽明:《57件彩礼案零上访》,《人民法院法院报》2007年4月,第2版。
4.李洪文、何斌:《婚约聘礼返还问题的法律思考》,《湖湘论坛》2006年第2期。
5.戴东雄:《违反婚约损害赔偿之过失与礼物返还》,《法学丛刊》1994年第6期。
6.熊进光:《婚约法律问题研究》,《河北法学》2003年第5期。
7.彭江红:《对离婚损害赔偿制度的探讨》,《法律适用》2002年3月第4期。
8.崔平、郭先美:《试析婚姻解除后赠与物归属问题》,《兰州大学学报》2006年5月。
9.李洪祥:《彩礼返还之规定的社会性别分析》,《法学杂志》2005年第2期。
10.于晓青:《传统文化中的彩礼及其流变》,《河南省政治管理干部学院学报》2008年第2期。
11.许珂:《规则下的裁量》,《南通航运职业技术学院学报》2007年第6期。
12.谢慧:《婚约财产流转之分析》,《山东大学学报》2006年第5期。
13.孙勇:《浅析解除婚约后财物纠纷的处理》,《辽宁师范大学学报》2004年第3期。
14.马强:《论婚约解除后赠与物归属问题与研究》,《法律适用》2000年第2期。
15.王军:《浅谈规范哈萨克族离婚案件彩礼退还的执法尺度》,《中共伊犁洲委党校学报》2002年第1期。
16.贺光辉:《婚姻解除后的法律后果探析》,《湖北社会科学》2005年第12期。
17.刘清生:《论婚约目的与彩礼返还》,《中国法学会婚姻法学研究会2007年年会论文集》2007年第1期。
18.黄娟:《“彩礼”返还的基础从规则探究》,《工会论坛》2006年第5期。
19.魏国学:《转型期的中国农村人口高彩礼婚姻——基于经济学视角的研究》,《中国人口科学》2008年第4期。
20.王丽娜:《婚约财产纠纷中彩礼性质探析》,《江苏经济报》2005年第3期。
21.李志浩:《利益平衡下的彩礼返还制度研究——兼论嫁妆的返还》,《十堰职业技术学院学报》2008年第6期。
22.张学军:《彩礼返还制度研究——兼论禁止买卖婚姻和禁止借婚姻索取财物》,《中外法学》2006年第5期。
23.王艳茹:《婚约财产纠纷的性质认定及处理原则》,《黑龙江科技信息》2008年第25期。
24.何志:《彩礼返还应具备的条件——南阳中院审理韩英上诉齐现金返还彩礼纠纷案》,《人民法院报》2008年,第5版。
25.李朴:《婚约解除后彩礼纠纷的处理》,《安康学院学报》2008年第6期。