All three forms of constructive delivery, namely, traditio brevi manu, traditio longa manu, and constitutum possessorium exist in both Chinese law and English law with notable differences in each form. As regards traditio brevi manu, the current unique requirement of the transferee’s prior possession being “legal” under Chinese law cannot be found in or deduced from its English counterpart. As regards traditio longa manu, the major difference between the two jurisdictions is that the third-party possessor’s attornment is necessary condition for a valid traditio longa manu in English law whereas it is not in Chinese law. As regards constitutum possessorium, while English law accepts a wider scope of scenarios than Chinese law, passing of property in English law by way of constitutum possessorium is only effective between the parties themselves but not viz a viz third parties whereas it is effective in both respects in Chinese law. Compared to a mess in English law regarding the issue of symbolic delivery, the simple, clear and negative attitude towards symbolic delivery in Chinese law is to be applauded, and is to be regarded as a Chinese voice that should be insisted on and be brought into the upcoming Book of Property of the Chinese Civil Code.