本文選題：締約過失　切入點(diǎn)：先合同義務(wù)　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：耶林于1861年提出的締約過失責(zé)任理論,打破了傳統(tǒng)合同法理論所堅(jiān)守的“無合同即無責(zé)任”理論,彌補(bǔ)了契約不成立時(shí)的責(zé)任漏洞,對(duì)于當(dāng)事人在合同磋商階段的權(quán)利起到了很好的保護(hù)作用。1999年合同法的頒布,標(biāo)志著締約過失責(zé)任已為我國(guó)法律所采納。但是,由于法律條文過于簡(jiǎn)單和抽象,不利于實(shí)際操作,致使在審判實(shí)踐中因缺乏具體的法律規(guī)定,造成裁判不一,也給司法實(shí)踐中留下了過多自由裁量的空間。本文試圖以案例為切入點(diǎn),發(fā)現(xiàn)司法實(shí)踐中適用締約過失責(zé)任制度的問題,通過對(duì)其基本理論等問題的研究,尋找解決司法實(shí)踐中適用締約過失責(zé)任的出路。全文共分為三個(gè)章節(jié)。第一章為締約過失責(zé)任的認(rèn)定,試圖通過對(duì)學(xué)界中有關(guān)締約過失責(zé)任的不同表述的比較,對(duì)其概念重新進(jìn)行界定,從而明確其構(gòu)成要件。然后,通過和違約責(zé)任、侵權(quán)責(zé)任的比較,分析其性質(zhì)。并圍繞我國(guó)合同法第42條、第43條的規(guī)定,列舉了司法實(shí)踐中的案例,將締約過失責(zé)任類型做了劃分,并著重對(duì)“其他違背誠(chéng)信原則產(chǎn)生締約過失責(zé)任”進(jìn)行了分析。第二章為締約過失責(zé)任的賠償,本章中以其保護(hù)對(duì)象為首先的研究對(duì)象,明確締約過失責(zé)任的保護(hù)對(duì)象除信賴?yán)嫱膺�應(yīng)包括固有利益。然后,對(duì)于爭(zhēng)議較大的信賴?yán)娴馁r償范圍進(jìn)一步進(jìn)行研究,提出了信賴?yán)鎿p失的賠償范圍應(yīng)包含機(jī)會(huì)損失但不應(yīng)包含非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害,并探討了其限制規(guī)則,從而進(jìn)一步明確了賠償范圍。第三章為締約過失責(zé)任認(rèn)定及賠償范圍之完善,本章旨在圍繞前兩章提到的具體問題分別從立法和司法實(shí)踐中尋求解決之道。在立法上,提出了締約過失責(zé)任為獨(dú)立民事責(zé)任之地位確立、締約過失責(zé)任概念及構(gòu)成要件之明文規(guī)定以及締約過失責(zé)任賠償范圍及原則之法律界定三點(diǎn)意見。同時(shí),對(duì)于司法實(shí)踐中適用締約過失責(zé)任時(shí)碰到的諸如合理信賴的認(rèn)定、機(jī)會(huì)損失的認(rèn)定和舉證責(zé)任的分配等進(jìn)行研究。
[Abstract]:In 1861, Ihering put forward the theory of contracting liability for negligence, broke the stick to the traditional theory of contract law "no contract, no responsibility" theory, make up the contract when the responsibility for the parties to the loopholes,.1999 years of contract law enacted to protect the good in the stage of contract negotiation rights, marking the party fault liability has been adopted in Chinese law. However, because the law is too simple and abstract, not conducive to the actual operation, resulting in judicial practice because of the lack of specific legal provisions, resulting in a referee, also to the judicial practice to leave too much discretion. This paper tries to take the case as the breakthrough point that is, the system of the contracting fault liability problems in the judicial practice, through the research on the basic theory problems, find solutions to apply to the contracting negligence liability way in judicial practice. The thesis is divided into three Chapters. The first chapter is identification of fault liability, tries to compare the different expressions of culpa in academic circles, the concept of re defined, so as to clarify its elements. Then, through the comparison of tort liability and liability for breach of contract, the analysis of the nature of the contract law of our country. And around forty-second the provisions of article forty-third, cited a case in judicial practice, the type of liability for negligence in contracting has been divided, and focus on the "other contracting negligence violates the principle of good faith which is analyzed. The second chapter is the contracting fault liability compensation, this chapter takes the protection of the object as the research object first. Clear the object of protection of contracting negligence responsibility in reliance interest should also include the inherent interests. Then, the scope of compensation for controversial trust in the interests of the further research, the scope of compensation for loss of trust and interests should be Contains the opportunity loss but should not include non property damage, and discusses the restriction rules, to further clarify the scope of compensation. The third chapter is to perfect the compensation scope and liability, this chapter aims to focus on the first two chapters mentioned specific problems respectively, seek the solution from the legislative and judicial practice in the legislation. And put forward the contracting fault liability was established as the independent status of civil liability, the concept of contracting negligence responsibility and elements stipulated and the legal scope of contracting fault liability compensation and the principle of defining three points. At the same time, to meet for culpa in judicial practice such as the reasonable reliance that study opportunity loss identification and the allocation of the burden of proof.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 韓世遠(yuǎn);;我國(guó)合同法中的締約上過失問題研究[J];法學(xué)家;2004年03期

2 李淑娟;;締約過失責(zé)任賠償范圍探析[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：1570187