關于拍賣

所謂拍賣，就是指以公開競價的形式，將特定物品或者財產轉讓給高應價者的買賣方式。高院關于執行中評估、拍賣、變賣等若干問題的相關規定中，“拍賣進行中，有高出價的，優先購買權人可以表示以該高價接受，如無高出價，則拍品歸優先購買權人，如有更高出價，而優先購買權人不為表示的，則歸高出價人。”拍賣本身是個價高者得的公開競價程序。當正處于租賃狀態的房屋被拍賣時，價高者得的原則與承租人于同等條件下有優先購買權的原則就會出現沖突，由此也產生一個悖論：拍賣合同作為一種的買賣合同，是以落槌為成交標志的諾成性合同。如果承租人不放棄優先購買權，亦不參加拍賣，當出現高價時，承租人此時表示當前高價其亦可以接受，如無更高出價，拍品則歸優先購買權人。此時摧毀了拍賣行為中以價高則得為原則的基本準則，無疑影響了拍賣程序的公正性。如果此時有更高出價，拍品則歸優先購買權人，此時似乎損害優先購買權人的權益。優先購買權人在同等條件下享有優先購買權的規定中，何為同等條件？如果在實務中既使拍賣正常進行，又能保護承租人的優先購買權呢？

About the auction

 The so-called auction refers to the way of selling and selling specific articles or property to the high bidder in the form of open bidding. In the relevant regulations of the High Court on the evaluation, auction and sale in execution ," If there is a high bid in the auction, the preferential purchaser may express acceptance at that high price, and if there is no high bid, the lot belongs to the preferred purchaser, and if there is a higher bid, the preferred purchaser does not express it ." The auction itself is an open bidding process for the high bidder. When the house in the lease state is auctioned, the principle of the high price will conflict with the principle that the lessee has the preemptive right under the same conditions, which also leads to a paradox: the auction contract is a kind of sale contract. Is a mallet as the sign of the contract. If the lessee does not give up the preemptive right and does not participate in the auction, when there is a high price, the lessee indicates that the current high price is also acceptable. If there is no higher bid, the lot is the priority buyer. At this time, the basic criterion of the principle of high price is destroyed, which undoubtedly affects the fairness of auction procedure. If there is a higher bid at this time, the lot is the priority buyer, which seems to damage the rights and interests of the priority buyer. What are the same conditions for the preemptive right to enjoy the preemptive right under the same conditions? What if, in practice, both the auction is carried out normally and the lessee's preemptive right is protected?