缔约过失责任制度研究
摘要
我国《合同法》颁布实施以后,在合同法中对缔约过失责制度做了较为明确的规定,缔约过失责任作为一项独立的债权制度,它的确立对维护缔约过程中双方当事人的利益具有十分重要的意义。
从我国《民法通则》及《合同法》对缔约过失责任的相关规定来看,缔约过失责任作为一项制度已写入其中,但对缔约过失责任的适用范围、适用程度、赔偿标准等没作具体规定。笔者以此为切入点,对这些问题加以研究,使缔约过失责任制度在维护整个市场交易秩序,创造一个公平、公正、有序的社会状态,能够发挥其更加积极的作用。
The paper, combining the working situation, systematically takes the theoretically analytical study on the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. Proceeding with the influence of the independent civil responsibility for the default in signing a treaty, it expounds in detail the definition, characteristics and the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. From the analysis of its essence, it illustrates the relationships and differences between the default responsibility in signing a treaty and other civil responsibilities such as tort liability and responsibility for the breach of contract, etc., establishing theoretical basis for determining correctly in practice the application of such a system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. From the classification of the legal formation and the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, it may help us have a deep and clear recognition and understanding for the civil responsibility of the default in signing a treaty more concretely and particularly, and increase the maneuverability and applicability, making this system exert its due legal functions more sufficiently.
The system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty is a kind of embodied civil system on the basis of the principle of honesty and credit. In order for the people not to lead to the suffering of loss of the other side because of the breach of the good faith behavior of the one side in the exchange, one must at any time pay attention to whether his or her behavior is the behavior of the breach of good faith such as cheat, which brings the intrinsic conflict and contradiction with the core contract principle of freedom as the contract system in the situation of market economy. It demands the leading of such value conflict, and requires how to protect the loss of the party’s faith in interest better while maintaining the contract freedom, sufficiently embodying the spirit of maintaining the contract law. This paper discusses the relationship between the two, enables them to get coordination and complement from the conflict and contradiction, and reaches a kind of mutually dynamic balance and interaction on the basis of
independently exerting their own functions, taking due effect in such aspects as maintaining exchange security, improving economic efficiency and fostering social progress. The system of default in signing a treaty has had great influence and effects as soon as it came into being. However, because it is not so perfect in theory and lacks practical experience, at present this system is far from being perfection both in the respect of legislation and judicature. The writer makes the discussion about the application of the default responsibility in signing a treaty in judicature practice and about the construction and perfection of this system in legislature, hoping that the research on the system can do good to the legislation and judicature practice. The paper has four chapters. Chapter I is an overview of the default in signing a treaty. It includes the following four parts. The first part gives the production and influence of the theory of the default in signing a treaty. Previously in the Roman law, there came the concept of one side encumbered with the obligation of careful attention to the other side in the process of signing a treaty, which is the bud of the responsibility system of signing a treaty. It can be inferred from it that the compensation concept of faith in interest has existed in Roman law, though it had less cases and narrower applicable scopes. But by and large the Roman law had no integral system of the previous contract obligations and default responsibility of signing a treaty. In 1861 Jhering published an article with the title of Default in Signing a Treaty---Damaging Compensation for the Invalid and Imperfect Contract in Jhering Law Yearly edited by him, expanding the explanation of the Roman law which is one of the origins in German general law and extensively acknowledging compensation for faith in interest. The second part talks about the definition, characteristics and the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: 1. the definition of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, which means that in the process of signing a treaty, one side of the party violates deliberately and by fault the previous contract obligation i.e. principle of honesty and credit, and causes loss to the other side, bearing the civil responsibility by law; 2. characteristics of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. The paper argues that the characteristics of the default
responsibility in signing a treaty should include the following: ⑴the default responsibility in signing a treaty is the civil responsibility produced in the process of signing a treaty. ⑵the default responsibility in signing a treaty is the civil responsibility on the basis of the principle of the honesty and credit of the civil law. ⑶the default responsibility in signing a treaty protects the obligees’faith in interests, but not fulfils their obligations. 3. the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty: ⑴the party signing a treaty violates the previous contract obligation; ⑵the relative party signing a treaty is in loss; ⑶the party who violates the previous contract obligation has fault. 4. There is a causal relationship between the fault and the loss. The third part analyses the quality of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: 1. The default responsibility in signing a treaty is the independent civil responsibility, 2. the default responsibility in signing a treaty and the violation responsibility, 3. the default responsibility in signing a treaty and pirate responsibility. Chapter II discusses the law form and the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. It includes: 1. the law form of the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 2. the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: ⑴making a contract and negotiating viciously; ⑵hiding deliberately the important truth in relation to making a contract or providing false conditions; ⑶revealing or employing wrongly the business secrets; ⑷other behaviors of violating the principle of honesty and credit; ⑸the violation of compelling obligation of making a contract; ⑹having no right to deputize. Chapter III deals with the interaction between the default responsibility in signing a treaty and the contract principle of freedom. It is made up of two parts. Part one talks about the conflict between the System of the Default Responsibility in Signing a Treaty and the contract principle of freedom, including: 1. the social factors of triggering the conflict; 2. the manifestation of the conflict. Part two is about the coordination between the System of the Default Responsibility in Signing a Treaty and the contract principle of freedom, including: 1. the necessity and the possibility of the conflict and the coordination; 2. the mode of the conflict and the coordination.
Chapter IV gives suggestions on the perfection of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. It is composed of the following two parts. One is the application of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty in the judicature practice, including: 1. the problem of defining the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 2. the problem of defining the compensation scopes of the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 3. the problem of defining the compensation bound; 4. the bearing mode of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. The other part is about the construction of perfecting the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. On the basis of the integral analysis of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, it proposes the construction to perfect the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, which is the core content of this paper and also the emphasis of the study.
从我国《民法通则》及《合同法》对缔约过失责任的相关规定来看,缔约过失责任作为一项制度已写入其中,但对缔约过失责任的适用范围、适用程度、赔偿标准等没作具体规定。笔者以此为切入点,对这些问题加以研究,使缔约过失责任制度在维护整个市场交易秩序,创造一个公平、公正、有序的社会状态,能够发挥其更加积极的作用。
The paper, combining the working situation, systematically takes the theoretically analytical study on the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. Proceeding with the influence of the independent civil responsibility for the default in signing a treaty, it expounds in detail the definition, characteristics and the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. From the analysis of its essence, it illustrates the relationships and differences between the default responsibility in signing a treaty and other civil responsibilities such as tort liability and responsibility for the breach of contract, etc., establishing theoretical basis for determining correctly in practice the application of such a system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. From the classification of the legal formation and the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, it may help us have a deep and clear recognition and understanding for the civil responsibility of the default in signing a treaty more concretely and particularly, and increase the maneuverability and applicability, making this system exert its due legal functions more sufficiently.
The system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty is a kind of embodied civil system on the basis of the principle of honesty and credit. In order for the people not to lead to the suffering of loss of the other side because of the breach of the good faith behavior of the one side in the exchange, one must at any time pay attention to whether his or her behavior is the behavior of the breach of good faith such as cheat, which brings the intrinsic conflict and contradiction with the core contract principle of freedom as the contract system in the situation of market economy. It demands the leading of such value conflict, and requires how to protect the loss of the party’s faith in interest better while maintaining the contract freedom, sufficiently embodying the spirit of maintaining the contract law. This paper discusses the relationship between the two, enables them to get coordination and complement from the conflict and contradiction, and reaches a kind of mutually dynamic balance and interaction on the basis of
independently exerting their own functions, taking due effect in such aspects as maintaining exchange security, improving economic efficiency and fostering social progress. The system of default in signing a treaty has had great influence and effects as soon as it came into being. However, because it is not so perfect in theory and lacks practical experience, at present this system is far from being perfection both in the respect of legislation and judicature. The writer makes the discussion about the application of the default responsibility in signing a treaty in judicature practice and about the construction and perfection of this system in legislature, hoping that the research on the system can do good to the legislation and judicature practice. The paper has four chapters. Chapter I is an overview of the default in signing a treaty. It includes the following four parts. The first part gives the production and influence of the theory of the default in signing a treaty. Previously in the Roman law, there came the concept of one side encumbered with the obligation of careful attention to the other side in the process of signing a treaty, which is the bud of the responsibility system of signing a treaty. It can be inferred from it that the compensation concept of faith in interest has existed in Roman law, though it had less cases and narrower applicable scopes. But by and large the Roman law had no integral system of the previous contract obligations and default responsibility of signing a treaty. In 1861 Jhering published an article with the title of Default in Signing a Treaty---Damaging Compensation for the Invalid and Imperfect Contract in Jhering Law Yearly edited by him, expanding the explanation of the Roman law which is one of the origins in German general law and extensively acknowledging compensation for faith in interest. The second part talks about the definition, characteristics and the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: 1. the definition of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, which means that in the process of signing a treaty, one side of the party violates deliberately and by fault the previous contract obligation i.e. principle of honesty and credit, and causes loss to the other side, bearing the civil responsibility by law; 2. characteristics of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. The paper argues that the characteristics of the default
responsibility in signing a treaty should include the following: ⑴the default responsibility in signing a treaty is the civil responsibility produced in the process of signing a treaty. ⑵the default responsibility in signing a treaty is the civil responsibility on the basis of the principle of the honesty and credit of the civil law. ⑶the default responsibility in signing a treaty protects the obligees’faith in interests, but not fulfils their obligations. 3. the constitutive requirements of the default responsibility in signing a treaty: ⑴the party signing a treaty violates the previous contract obligation; ⑵the relative party signing a treaty is in loss; ⑶the party who violates the previous contract obligation has fault. 4. There is a causal relationship between the fault and the loss. The third part analyses the quality of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: 1. The default responsibility in signing a treaty is the independent civil responsibility, 2. the default responsibility in signing a treaty and the violation responsibility, 3. the default responsibility in signing a treaty and pirate responsibility. Chapter II discusses the law form and the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. It includes: 1. the law form of the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 2. the types of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, including: ⑴making a contract and negotiating viciously; ⑵hiding deliberately the important truth in relation to making a contract or providing false conditions; ⑶revealing or employing wrongly the business secrets; ⑷other behaviors of violating the principle of honesty and credit; ⑸the violation of compelling obligation of making a contract; ⑹having no right to deputize. Chapter III deals with the interaction between the default responsibility in signing a treaty and the contract principle of freedom. It is made up of two parts. Part one talks about the conflict between the System of the Default Responsibility in Signing a Treaty and the contract principle of freedom, including: 1. the social factors of triggering the conflict; 2. the manifestation of the conflict. Part two is about the coordination between the System of the Default Responsibility in Signing a Treaty and the contract principle of freedom, including: 1. the necessity and the possibility of the conflict and the coordination; 2. the mode of the conflict and the coordination.
Chapter IV gives suggestions on the perfection of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. It is composed of the following two parts. One is the application of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty in the judicature practice, including: 1. the problem of defining the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 2. the problem of defining the compensation scopes of the default responsibility in signing a treaty; 3. the problem of defining the compensation bound; 4. the bearing mode of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. The other part is about the construction of perfecting the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty. On the basis of the integral analysis of the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, it proposes the construction to perfect the system of the default responsibility in signing a treaty, which is the core content of this paper and also the emphasis of the study.
引文
[1]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,第1 册,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第79 页。
[2]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,第4 册,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第9 页。
[3]傅静坤:《二十世纪契约法》,法律出版社,1997 年版,第34 页。
[4][5]《希腊民法典》,第197/198 条。转引自王利明《合同法新论》。
[6]参见《意大利民法典》第1337 条。
[7][8]参见《国际商事合同通则》第215/318 条。
[9]《中华人民共和国民法通则》第64 条。
[10]王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版,第607 页。
[11]林诚二:《民法理论与问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版,第268 页。
[12]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,第1 册,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第99 页。
[13][14][15][16]见《中华人民共和国合同法》第52/54/42/38/48/45 条。
[17]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1995 年版,第179 页。
[18]马俊驹、余延满:《民法原论》(下),法律出版社1998 年版,第531页。
[19]张宏生等:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1983 年版,第247-249页。
[20][美]博登海默著:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》(邓正来译),中国政法大学出版社1999 年版,第107、109 页。
[21]张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版,第188、189 页。
[22]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》(第六册),中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第8-9 页。
[23]刘得宽:《民法诸问题与新展望》,第427 页。
[24]马俊驹、余延满:《民法原论》(下),法律出版社1998 年版,520 页。
[25]王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版,第598 页。
[26]王家福:《中国民法学民法债权》,法律出版社1991 年版,第259 页。
[27]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1996 年版,第160 页。
[28]全国人大法工委研究室编写组:《中华人民共和国合同法释义》,人民法院出版1999 年版,第67 页。
[29]孙社海:《中华人民共和国合同法》立法资料选,法律出版社,1999年版,148 页。
[31][32][33]见《中华人民共和国合同法》第42/43/58 条。
1、潘慧明:《论缔约过失责任》,《理论探索》2003 年第4 期。
2、邓姗姗:《论缔约过失责任》,《前沿》2003 年第9 期。
3、范金萍:《再论缔约过失责任》,《民商法研究》2002 年第3 期。
4、李宝军:《非财产损害赔偿与缔约过失责任》,《当代法学》2003 年第3期。
5、吴智永张敏:《缔约过失责任三题》,《当代法学》2003 年第2 期。
6、朱莉:《论我国<合同法>中的缔约过失责任》,《当代法学》2001年第3 期。
7、于伟:《合同缔约过失责任之小论》,《当代法学》2003 年第2 期。
8、赵金龙:《论缔约过失责任的独立性》,《当代法学》1999 年第6 期。
9、赵金龙:《合同变更的缔约过失责任问题》,《河北法学》2000 年第3 期。
10、冯锦彩:《缔约过失责任的司法适用》,《理论探索》2003 年第2 期。
11、丁勇:《论德国法中的第三人缔约过失责任》,《法律科学》2004 年第3 期。
12、姜晖:《〈合同法〉上的缔约过失责任制度初探》,《经济与社会发展》2003 年第8 期。
13、焦富民:《论缔约过失责任制度》,《扬州大学学报》2002 年第5 期。
14、姜淑明:《先合同义务与违反先合同义务的法律责任形态研究》,《法商研究》2000 年第2 期。
15、钱玉林:《缔约过失责任与诚信原则的适用》,《法律科学》1999 年第4 期。
1、杨桢著:《英美契约法论》(修定本),北京大学出版社2000 年版。
2、王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,中国政法大学出版社,1998 年版。
3、梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1996 年版。
4、王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版;《合同法研究》,中国人民大学出版社,2002 年版。
5、王利明、崔建远:《合同法新论·总则》(修定版),中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版。
6、全国人大常委会办公厅研究室、中华人民共和国合同法实用指南编写组:《中华人民共和国合同法实用指南》,华文出版社1999 年版。
7、[德]霍恩等:《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社,1996 年版。
8、林诚二:《民法理论与问题研究》,北京,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
9、张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
10、张宏生等:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1983 年版。
11、[美]博登海默著:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》(中译本),中国政法大学出版社1999 年版。
12、[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(中译本),商务印书馆2002 年版。
13、傅静坤:《二十世纪契约法》,法律出版社,1997 年版。
[2]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,第4 册,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第9 页。
[3]傅静坤:《二十世纪契约法》,法律出版社,1997 年版,第34 页。
[4][5]《希腊民法典》,第197/198 条。转引自王利明《合同法新论》。
[6]参见《意大利民法典》第1337 条。
[7][8]参见《国际商事合同通则》第215/318 条。
[9]《中华人民共和国民法通则》第64 条。
[10]王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版,第607 页。
[11]林诚二:《民法理论与问题研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版,第268 页。
[12]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,第1 册,中国政法大学出版社,1998年版,第99 页。
[13][14][15][16]见《中华人民共和国合同法》第52/54/42/38/48/45 条。
[17]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1995 年版,第179 页。
[18]马俊驹、余延满:《民法原论》(下),法律出版社1998 年版,第531页。
[19]张宏生等:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1983 年版,第247-249页。
[20][美]博登海默著:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》(邓正来译),中国政法大学出版社1999 年版,第107、109 页。
[21]张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社,2001 年版,第188、189 页。
[22]王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》(第六册),中国政法大学出版社1997年版,第8-9 页。
[23]刘得宽:《民法诸问题与新展望》,第427 页。
[24]马俊驹、余延满:《民法原论》(下),法律出版社1998 年版,520 页。
[25]王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版,第598 页。
[26]王家福:《中国民法学民法债权》,法律出版社1991 年版,第259 页。
[27]梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1996 年版,第160 页。
[28]全国人大法工委研究室编写组:《中华人民共和国合同法释义》,人民法院出版1999 年版,第67 页。
[29]孙社海:《中华人民共和国合同法》立法资料选,法律出版社,1999年版,148 页。
[31][32][33]见《中华人民共和国合同法》第42/43/58 条。
1、潘慧明:《论缔约过失责任》,《理论探索》2003 年第4 期。
2、邓姗姗:《论缔约过失责任》,《前沿》2003 年第9 期。
3、范金萍:《再论缔约过失责任》,《民商法研究》2002 年第3 期。
4、李宝军:《非财产损害赔偿与缔约过失责任》,《当代法学》2003 年第3期。
5、吴智永张敏:《缔约过失责任三题》,《当代法学》2003 年第2 期。
6、朱莉:《论我国<合同法>中的缔约过失责任》,《当代法学》2001年第3 期。
7、于伟:《合同缔约过失责任之小论》,《当代法学》2003 年第2 期。
8、赵金龙:《论缔约过失责任的独立性》,《当代法学》1999 年第6 期。
9、赵金龙:《合同变更的缔约过失责任问题》,《河北法学》2000 年第3 期。
10、冯锦彩:《缔约过失责任的司法适用》,《理论探索》2003 年第2 期。
11、丁勇:《论德国法中的第三人缔约过失责任》,《法律科学》2004 年第3 期。
12、姜晖:《〈合同法〉上的缔约过失责任制度初探》,《经济与社会发展》2003 年第8 期。
13、焦富民:《论缔约过失责任制度》,《扬州大学学报》2002 年第5 期。
14、姜淑明:《先合同义务与违反先合同义务的法律责任形态研究》,《法商研究》2000 年第2 期。
15、钱玉林:《缔约过失责任与诚信原则的适用》,《法律科学》1999 年第4 期。
1、杨桢著:《英美契约法论》(修定本),北京大学出版社2000 年版。
2、王泽鉴:《民法学说与判例研究》,中国政法大学出版社,1998 年版。
3、梁慧星:《民法总论》,法律出版社,1996 年版。
4、王利明:《违约责任论》,中国政法大学出版社,1996 年版;《合同法研究》,中国人民大学出版社,2002 年版。
5、王利明、崔建远:《合同法新论·总则》(修定版),中国政法大学出版社,2000 年版。
6、全国人大常委会办公厅研究室、中华人民共和国合同法实用指南编写组:《中华人民共和国合同法实用指南》,华文出版社1999 年版。
7、[德]霍恩等:《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社,1996 年版。
8、林诚二:《民法理论与问题研究》,北京,中国政法大学出版社,2000年版。
9、张文显:《法哲学范畴研究》,中国政法大学出版社2001 年版。
10、张宏生等:《西方法律思想史》,北京大学出版社1983 年版。
11、[美]博登海默著:《法理学:法律哲学与法律方法》(中译本),中国政法大学出版社1999 年版。
12、[法]孟德斯鸠:《论法的精神》(中译本),商务印书馆2002 年版。
13、傅静坤:《二十世纪契约法》,法律出版社,1997 年版。