本文選題：保護(hù)義務(wù)　切入點(diǎn)：安全保障義務(wù)　出處：《清華法學(xué)》2015年06期 　論文類型：期刊論文

【摘要】：合同保護(hù)義務(wù)是合同責(zé)任擴(kuò)張的首要路徑與受害人保護(hù)強(qiáng)化的必然結(jié)果。違反保護(hù)義務(wù)可產(chǎn)生合同解除權(quán),其合同責(zé)任為過錯(cuò)責(zé)任,損害賠償范圍限定應(yīng)拋棄可預(yù)見性規(guī)則。安全保障義務(wù)與保護(hù)義務(wù)本質(zhì)相同,皆為法定義務(wù),均造成固有利益損害,并導(dǎo)致侵權(quán)性損害賠償責(zé)任。保護(hù)義務(wù)也可構(gòu)成先合同義務(wù),締約過失責(zé)任是特殊的侵權(quán)責(zé)任。違反保護(hù)義務(wù)引發(fā)合同責(zé)任或侵權(quán)責(zé)任時(shí),兩種責(zé)任的實(shí)質(zhì)差異有限。
[Abstract]:The obligation to protect the contract is the inevitable result of the expansion of the contract liability and the strengthening of the protection of the victim. The breach of the obligation of protection may give rise to the right of rescission of the contract, and its contractual liability is the fault liability. The scope of compensation for damages should be limited by the rule of predictability. The obligation of safety and security is essentially the same as the obligation of protection, which is both legal obligations and causes damage to the inherent interests. The obligation of protection may also constitute the obligation of prior contract, and the liability for fault in contracting is a special liability for tort. When the breach of obligation of protection leads to the liability of contract or tort, the essential difference between the two kinds of liability is limited.
【作者單位】： 山西財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：國家社會(huì)科學(xué)基金項(xiàng)目(14BFX118) 山西省軟科學(xué)研究計(jì)劃項(xiàng)目(2014041017—5)的階段性研究成果
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳現(xiàn)杰;《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理人身損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》的若干理論與實(shí)務(wù)問題解析[J];法律適用;2004年02期

2 葉i吰，

本文編號(hào)：1562754