论第三人胁迫合同效力的立法模式之选择——兼评《民法总则》第150条之规定
|
摘要
第三人胁迫而订立的合同,因表意人是受胁迫而为之意思表示,有违合同自由原则,其效力当然受到影响。此处的"第三人"应当受到一定的限制,非所有第三人均可。其效力集中体现为受胁迫人(表意人)与相对人之间利益的冲突。通过比较研究的方法可得知,现存有两种关于第三人胁迫合同效力的立法模式:静态安全保护主义立法模式与动态安全保护主义立法模式。并进一步对我国《民法总则》第150条之规定进行评价,认为《民法总则》第150条中采取了静态安全绝对保护主义之立法模式,其弥补了我国第三人胁迫制度之空白,但并未对满足一定条件的善意相对人的信赖利益予以适当的保护,进而指出静态安全相对保护主义之立法模式更适合我国。
A contract entered into under duress by a third party is, of course, affected in its validity because the implied parties express their intention under duress, which is contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. The "third party" here shall be limited to a certain extent, not all third parties. Its effectiveness is mainly reflected in the conflict of interests between the coerced person(idealist) and the counterpart can be learned by the method of comparative study. There are two kinds of existing legislative model about the third per-son stress contract effectiveness: static security protectionist legislation model and dynamic security protectionist legislation mode. And further to our country in the "general civil law" the 150 th stipulation about the third person stress evaluation, and points out that the static security protectionist legislation mode of the static security relatively protectionism is more suitable for our country.
A contract entered into under duress by a third party is, of course, affected in its validity because the implied parties express their intention under duress, which is contrary to the principle of freedom of contract. The "third party" here shall be limited to a certain extent, not all third parties. Its effectiveness is mainly reflected in the conflict of interests between the coerced person(idealist) and the counterpart can be learned by the method of comparative study. There are two kinds of existing legislative model about the third per-son stress contract effectiveness: static security protectionist legislation model and dynamic security protectionist legislation mode. And further to our country in the "general civil law" the 150 th stipulation about the third person stress evaluation, and points out that the static security protectionist legislation mode of the static security relatively protectionism is more suitable for our country.
引文
[1]迪特尔·梅迪库斯.德国民法总论[M].邵建东,译.北京:法律出版社,2013:265-267.
[2]尹田.论涉他契约:兼评合同法第64条、65条之规定[J].法学研究,2001(1):33-49.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:321-323.
[4]瑞士债法典[M].吴兆祥,事佳友,译.北京:法律出版社2004:93-95.
[5]冉克平.论因第三人欺诈或胁迫而订立合同的效力[J].法学论坛,2012(4):109-115.
[6]侯巍.论第三人胁迫的效力及其立法构建[J].法商研究,2007(5):96-101.
[7]薛军.第三人欺诈与第三人胁迫[J].法学研究,2011(1):58-67.
[8]彭熙海.债法中的第三人欺诈与第三人胁迫:判断标准、法律后果与救济途径[J].北华大学学报(社会科学版),2017(1):73-81.
[9]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱俄,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:28-30.
(1)《法国民法典》第1111条:“对缔结债务的人实施的胁迫,构成契约之无效原因;即使由为其利益订立契约的人以外的第三人实施的胁迫亦同。”
(2)《德国民法典》第123条第一款:“因被恶意欺诈或不法胁迫而为之意思表示者,可撤销其意思表示。”
[2]尹田.论涉他契约:兼评合同法第64条、65条之规定[J].法学研究,2001(1):33-49.
[3]王泽鉴.民法总则[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2015:321-323.
[4]瑞士债法典[M].吴兆祥,事佳友,译.北京:法律出版社2004:93-95.
[5]冉克平.论因第三人欺诈或胁迫而订立合同的效力[J].法学论坛,2012(4):109-115.
[6]侯巍.论第三人胁迫的效力及其立法构建[J].法商研究,2007(5):96-101.
[7]薛军.第三人欺诈与第三人胁迫[J].法学研究,2011(1):58-67.
[8]彭熙海.债法中的第三人欺诈与第三人胁迫:判断标准、法律后果与救济途径[J].北华大学学报(社会科学版),2017(1):73-81.
[9]卡尔·拉伦茨.法学方法论[M].陈爱俄,译.北京:商务印书馆,2003:28-30.
(1)《法国民法典》第1111条:“对缔结债务的人实施的胁迫,构成契约之无效原因;即使由为其利益订立契约的人以外的第三人实施的胁迫亦同。”
(2)《德国民法典》第123条第一款:“因被恶意欺诈或不法胁迫而为之意思表示者,可撤销其意思表示。”