缔约过失责任研究
摘要
随着我国改革开放的不断深入，交易活动出现了更深、更广、更频繁的趋势。在我国司法实践中，因缔约过失产生的合同纠纷随之日益增加，当事人在缔约阶段的行为亟需法律调整。而我国《合同法》尽管已确立了缔约过失责任制度，但缺乏可操作性。笔者在本文中采取制度分析、实证分析、比较分析等方法，对缔约过失责任的有关问题进行了研究、探讨，以期为建立我国可操作的缔约过失责任提供制度选择。
一、缔约过失责任的基本理念。首先，比较分析了缔约过失责任概念的五种观点，指出缔约过失责任是缔约一方当事人在缔约过程中违反依诚实信用原则所应承担的先合同义务而造成对方信赖利益的损失时所应承担的民事责任。其次，在比较分析关于缔约过失责任理论基础的四种学说：法律行为说、侵权行为说、法律规定说、诚实信用说的基础上，提出了诚实信用原则是缔约过失责任的理论基础的观点。
二、缔约过失责任理论的历史变迁。对缔约过失责任进行系统、深入研究的，始自德国法学家耶林，他认为，在缔约过程中，缔约双方负有因诚实而产生的积极义务，违反该义务一方当事人负有损害赔偿义务。随着世界经济贸易的飞速发展和人们对信用、诚实的日益重视，世界各国都逐渐承认、接受了缔约过失责任制度。
三、缔约过失责任的构成和适用。首先，笔者认为认定缔约过失责任的构成要件有四：缔约当事人有违反先合同义务行为，违反
先合同义务行为给对方造成了信赖利益的损失，违反先合同义务的
一方当事人在主观上有过错，违反先合同义务行为与实际损害存在
因果关系。其次，综观有关国家的立法和判例，笔者认为缔约过失
责任的主要类型有九种：一是假借订立合同，恶意进行磋商；二是
故意隐瞒与订立合同有关的重要事实或提供虚假情况；三是撤回和
撤销要约不当；四是撤回承诺不当；五是缔约之际未尽通知义务；
六是缔约之际未尽保护义务；七是缔约之际未尽保密义务；八是合
同元效或被撤销；九是无权代理。最后，结合司法实线，笔者认为
有三个问题值得注意：一是在缔约双方共同过错情况下，应视情况
实行过失相抵，在明知对方过错情况下，不适用缔约过失；二是时
效问题在无明文规定的情况下，可适用1年、2年、4年、20年的
有关规定；三是为避免踞契约自由的基本原则，应慎用缔约过失
责任制度。
四、缔约过失责任与相关责任制度的比较。深人研究缔约过失
责任制度与违约责任、侵权责任及允诺禁反言制度的异同，指出缔
约过失责任制度是一种独立的民事责任。
五、我国缔约过失责任立法现状及检讨。分析了我国缔约过失
责任制度存在的问题，提出了尽快在法律条文中明确构成要件、适
用范围、法律后果及时效的立法建议。
With the development of our open - and - reform policy, there is a deeper, wider and more frequent trend in the transaction. In the judicial practice of our country, there is
a lot of dispute about contract coming from contracting for negligence and partiers' action during contracting need law to regulate mosdy. Although our country' s Contract Law
has set up Fault In Negotiating, it looks infeasibility. In order to provide a correct choice of institution for Fault In Negotiating of our country, the author made a deep research and discuss on the questions about Fault In Negotiating by institution analysis, practical analysis, comparative analysis and other methods.
First, the rationales of Fault In Negotiating. Firstly, the author analyzes the fire viewpoints of this concept by com-paration. He points out it is the civil liability that one party should undertake when he violates the pre - contractual
Duties because he disobeys the good faith principles and
causes the other party lose of reliance interests. Secondly, the author points out that the good faith principles is the
theory basis of Fault In Negotiating. On the basis of analyzing the four theories about it: the theory of legal
behavior, the theory of tort behavior, the theory of regulation, the theory of the good faith.
Second. History and development of the theory of Fault
In Negotiating. The pioneer who made a comprehension and deeper research on Fault In Negotiating is Yaline, a German Law expert. He considers that the parties of a contract have positive duties coming from honesty during contracting, and the party who breaks them should undertake
compensation duties. With the rapid development of the world economy and transaction, people pay more attention to
credit and honesty. More countries in the world gradually
acknowledge and accept the institution of Fault In Negotiating .
Third. The constitution and application of Fault In Negotiating. At first, the author believes that, the constitutive elements of defining Fault In Negotiating have four: one of
contracting parties has conducts of violating Pre - contractual
duties; those conducts lead to the other party' s loss of reliance interests; one party has subjective faults; those conducts and actual harms have the relationships of cause and effect. Then, observing relevant countries' legislation
and legal precedent, the author believes that, the main types of Fault In Negotiating are the followed: 1. conferring with each other at ill will under the name of contracting; 2. concealing intentionally important facts on con-
tracting or providing false information; 3. recalling and annulling inappropriate contracting; 4. recalling inappropriate acceptance; 5. at the time of contracting, not performing informing duty; 6. at the time of contracting, not performing
the protection duty; 7. at the time of contracting, not performing duty of keeping secret; 8. contract being invalid
or being annulled; 9. having no acting right. At last, the author thinks that in practice we should pay attention to three problems: first, under circumstances of contributory negligence of both parties, negligence should be counteracted according to the specific situation. Under the circumstances of
being aware of the other party' s faults, negligence should not be applied; second, if there is not obvious regulations in laws on the issue of valid period, the relative regulations for one year, two years, four years and twenty years can be applied; third, the institution of Fault In Negotiating should used prudently, in order to protect the basic
principle of contracting freely from harming.
Fourth. The comparison of Fault In Negotiating and relative liability institutions. The article studies deeply the difference and similarity of Fault In Negotiating and the liability for tort, the liability for breach of contract and the
institution of acceptance forbidding backing out. Trie article
also points that Fault In Negotiating is an independent civil liability.
Fifth. Hie present sit
一、缔约过失责任的基本理念。首先，比较分析了缔约过失责任概念的五种观点，指出缔约过失责任是缔约一方当事人在缔约过程中违反依诚实信用原则所应承担的先合同义务而造成对方信赖利益的损失时所应承担的民事责任。其次，在比较分析关于缔约过失责任理论基础的四种学说：法律行为说、侵权行为说、法律规定说、诚实信用说的基础上，提出了诚实信用原则是缔约过失责任的理论基础的观点。
二、缔约过失责任理论的历史变迁。对缔约过失责任进行系统、深入研究的，始自德国法学家耶林，他认为，在缔约过程中，缔约双方负有因诚实而产生的积极义务，违反该义务一方当事人负有损害赔偿义务。随着世界经济贸易的飞速发展和人们对信用、诚实的日益重视，世界各国都逐渐承认、接受了缔约过失责任制度。
三、缔约过失责任的构成和适用。首先，笔者认为认定缔约过失责任的构成要件有四：缔约当事人有违反先合同义务行为，违反
先合同义务行为给对方造成了信赖利益的损失，违反先合同义务的
一方当事人在主观上有过错，违反先合同义务行为与实际损害存在
因果关系。其次，综观有关国家的立法和判例，笔者认为缔约过失
责任的主要类型有九种：一是假借订立合同，恶意进行磋商；二是
故意隐瞒与订立合同有关的重要事实或提供虚假情况；三是撤回和
撤销要约不当；四是撤回承诺不当；五是缔约之际未尽通知义务；
六是缔约之际未尽保护义务；七是缔约之际未尽保密义务；八是合
同元效或被撤销；九是无权代理。最后，结合司法实线，笔者认为
有三个问题值得注意：一是在缔约双方共同过错情况下，应视情况
实行过失相抵，在明知对方过错情况下，不适用缔约过失；二是时
效问题在无明文规定的情况下，可适用1年、2年、4年、20年的
有关规定；三是为避免踞契约自由的基本原则，应慎用缔约过失
责任制度。
四、缔约过失责任与相关责任制度的比较。深人研究缔约过失
责任制度与违约责任、侵权责任及允诺禁反言制度的异同，指出缔
约过失责任制度是一种独立的民事责任。
五、我国缔约过失责任立法现状及检讨。分析了我国缔约过失
责任制度存在的问题，提出了尽快在法律条文中明确构成要件、适
用范围、法律后果及时效的立法建议。
With the development of our open - and - reform policy, there is a deeper, wider and more frequent trend in the transaction. In the judicial practice of our country, there is
a lot of dispute about contract coming from contracting for negligence and partiers' action during contracting need law to regulate mosdy. Although our country' s Contract Law
has set up Fault In Negotiating, it looks infeasibility. In order to provide a correct choice of institution for Fault In Negotiating of our country, the author made a deep research and discuss on the questions about Fault In Negotiating by institution analysis, practical analysis, comparative analysis and other methods.
First, the rationales of Fault In Negotiating. Firstly, the author analyzes the fire viewpoints of this concept by com-paration. He points out it is the civil liability that one party should undertake when he violates the pre - contractual
Duties because he disobeys the good faith principles and
causes the other party lose of reliance interests. Secondly, the author points out that the good faith principles is the
theory basis of Fault In Negotiating. On the basis of analyzing the four theories about it: the theory of legal
behavior, the theory of tort behavior, the theory of regulation, the theory of the good faith.
Second. History and development of the theory of Fault
In Negotiating. The pioneer who made a comprehension and deeper research on Fault In Negotiating is Yaline, a German Law expert. He considers that the parties of a contract have positive duties coming from honesty during contracting, and the party who breaks them should undertake
compensation duties. With the rapid development of the world economy and transaction, people pay more attention to
credit and honesty. More countries in the world gradually
acknowledge and accept the institution of Fault In Negotiating .
Third. The constitution and application of Fault In Negotiating. At first, the author believes that, the constitutive elements of defining Fault In Negotiating have four: one of
contracting parties has conducts of violating Pre - contractual
duties; those conducts lead to the other party' s loss of reliance interests; one party has subjective faults; those conducts and actual harms have the relationships of cause and effect. Then, observing relevant countries' legislation
and legal precedent, the author believes that, the main types of Fault In Negotiating are the followed: 1. conferring with each other at ill will under the name of contracting; 2. concealing intentionally important facts on con-
tracting or providing false information; 3. recalling and annulling inappropriate contracting; 4. recalling inappropriate acceptance; 5. at the time of contracting, not performing informing duty; 6. at the time of contracting, not performing
the protection duty; 7. at the time of contracting, not performing duty of keeping secret; 8. contract being invalid
or being annulled; 9. having no acting right. At last, the author thinks that in practice we should pay attention to three problems: first, under circumstances of contributory negligence of both parties, negligence should be counteracted according to the specific situation. Under the circumstances of
being aware of the other party' s faults, negligence should not be applied; second, if there is not obvious regulations in laws on the issue of valid period, the relative regulations for one year, two years, four years and twenty years can be applied; third, the institution of Fault In Negotiating should used prudently, in order to protect the basic
principle of contracting freely from harming.
Fourth. The comparison of Fault In Negotiating and relative liability institutions. The article studies deeply the difference and similarity of Fault In Negotiating and the liability for tort, the liability for breach of contract and the
institution of acceptance forbidding backing out. Trie article
also points that Fault In Negotiating is an independent civil liability.
Fifth. Hie present sit
引文
[1]王利明：《民商法研究》(修订本)第1辑，法律出版社2001年版。
[2]崔建远：《新合同法原理与案例评释》，吉林大学出版社1999年版。
[3]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第一册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[4]王利明：《合同法要义与案例析解(总则)》，中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
[5]郑冲、贾红梅译：《德国民法典》，法律出版社1999年版。
[6]〔日〕本田纯一：《关于缔结契约上的过失理论》。
[7]梁慧星：《德国民法典债务法的修改》。
[8]崔建远：《合同责任研究》，吉林大学出版社1998年版。
[9]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第六册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[10]刘得宽：《民法诸问题与新展望》(台)，三民书局1980年版。
[11]余怿：《论建立我国缔约过失责任制度》。
[12]陈朝阳：《试论新民事责任—缔约责任》。
[13]隋彭生：《合同法论》，法律出版社1997年版。
[14]王利明：《违约责任论》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
[15]姜淑明：《先合同义务及违反先合同义务之责任形态研究》。
[16]董安生：《民事法律行为》，中国人民大学出版社1994年版。
[17]崔建远：《缔约上过失责任论》。
[18]李军：《寻求公平：缔约过失制度的开创与完善》。
[19]徐国栋：《民法基本原则解释》，中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
[20]王家福：《中国民法学·民法债权》。
[21]魏青松：《从缔约过错责任谈我国合同法的完善》。
[22]苏惠祥：《中国当代合同法》，吉林大学出版社1992年版。
[23]何勤华、戴永胜：《新民商法论》，复旦大学出版社1999年版。
[24]李国光：《合同法解释与适用》，新华出版社1999年版。
[25]陈丽萍、黄川：《论先契约义务》。
[26]丁义军、郭华：《新合同纠纷案件判解研究》，人民法院出版社2001年版。
[27]房绍坤、郭明瑞、唐广良：《民商法原理(三)》，中国人民大学出版社1999年版。
[28]傅静坤：《以色列统一合同法》(1973)〔A〕，法律出版社1984年版。
[29]蓝蓝：《对缔约责任几个基本理论问题的探讨》。
[30]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第五册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[31]孙瑞玺：《论缔约过失责任》。
[32]《德国民法典》〔M〕法律出版社1984年版。
[33]Ewoud H. Hondius Precontranctual Liability, Deventer, 1991.
[34]尹鲁先：《缔约过失初探》。
[35]海因·克茨著，周忠海译：《欧洲合同法》法律出版社2000年版。
[36]Kastely Post Hom, Contracting law, Carolina Acadeunic Press, 1996.
[37]杨桢：《英美契约法》〔M〕，北京大学出版社1997年版。
[38]法国：Cass．com．1978年10月30日案；意大利：Hondius，Precontractual Liability．
[39]〔美〕科斯、哈特、斯蒂格利茨等著，〔瑞〕拉斯·沃因、汉斯·韦茨德编，李风圣主译：《契约经济学》，经济科学出版社1999年版。
[40]〔德〕柯武刚、史漫飞著，韩朝华译：《制度经济学》，商务印书馆2000年版。
[2]崔建远：《新合同法原理与案例评释》，吉林大学出版社1999年版。
[3]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第一册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[4]王利明：《合同法要义与案例析解(总则)》，中国人民大学出版社2001年版。
[5]郑冲、贾红梅译：《德国民法典》，法律出版社1999年版。
[6]〔日〕本田纯一：《关于缔结契约上的过失理论》。
[7]梁慧星：《德国民法典债务法的修改》。
[8]崔建远：《合同责任研究》，吉林大学出版社1998年版。
[9]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第六册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[10]刘得宽：《民法诸问题与新展望》(台)，三民书局1980年版。
[11]余怿：《论建立我国缔约过失责任制度》。
[12]陈朝阳：《试论新民事责任—缔约责任》。
[13]隋彭生：《合同法论》，法律出版社1997年版。
[14]王利明：《违约责任论》，中国政法大学出版社1996年版。
[15]姜淑明：《先合同义务及违反先合同义务之责任形态研究》。
[16]董安生：《民事法律行为》，中国人民大学出版社1994年版。
[17]崔建远：《缔约上过失责任论》。
[18]李军：《寻求公平：缔约过失制度的开创与完善》。
[19]徐国栋：《民法基本原则解释》，中国政法大学出版社1992年版。
[20]王家福：《中国民法学·民法债权》。
[21]魏青松：《从缔约过错责任谈我国合同法的完善》。
[22]苏惠祥：《中国当代合同法》，吉林大学出版社1992年版。
[23]何勤华、戴永胜：《新民商法论》，复旦大学出版社1999年版。
[24]李国光：《合同法解释与适用》，新华出版社1999年版。
[25]陈丽萍、黄川：《论先契约义务》。
[26]丁义军、郭华：《新合同纠纷案件判解研究》，人民法院出版社2001年版。
[27]房绍坤、郭明瑞、唐广良：《民商法原理(三)》，中国人民大学出版社1999年版。
[28]傅静坤：《以色列统一合同法》(1973)〔A〕，法律出版社1984年版。
[29]蓝蓝：《对缔约责任几个基本理论问题的探讨》。
[30]王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》(第五册)，中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[31]孙瑞玺：《论缔约过失责任》。
[32]《德国民法典》〔M〕法律出版社1984年版。
[33]Ewoud H. Hondius Precontranctual Liability, Deventer, 1991.
[34]尹鲁先：《缔约过失初探》。
[35]海因·克茨著，周忠海译：《欧洲合同法》法律出版社2000年版。
[36]Kastely Post Hom, Contracting law, Carolina Acadeunic Press, 1996.
[37]杨桢：《英美契约法》〔M〕，北京大学出版社1997年版。
[38]法国：Cass．com．1978年10月30日案；意大利：Hondius，Precontractual Liability．
[39]〔美〕科斯、哈特、斯蒂格利茨等著，〔瑞〕拉斯·沃因、汉斯·韦茨德编，李风圣主译：《契约经济学》，经济科学出版社1999年版。
[40]〔德〕柯武刚、史漫飞著，韩朝华译：《制度经济学》，商务印书馆2000年版。