本文選題：強制締約　切入點：適用范圍　出處：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：強制締約是訂立合同的特殊程序。強制締約的適用范圍究竟有多大,不同學者的認識有很大的差別,存在著強制締約適用范圍的廣義說和狹義說。強制締約的適用范圍的爭議集中表現為兩個焦點:一是,優(yōu)先購買權是否屬于強制締約的適用范圍;二是,基于平等權、反對締約歧視能否產生強制締約義務。優(yōu)先購買權是否屬于強制締約的適用范圍的問題,應當回歸優(yōu)先購買權的權利性質上考慮,優(yōu)先購買權是形成權,并沒有強制締約制度的適用余地和適用必要。目前,司法裁判將優(yōu)先購買權定性為附強制締約義務的請求權,這實際上是對最高人民法院相關司法解釋理解與適用的照搬,不足以否定理論界關于優(yōu)先購買權是形成權的通說見解。形成權的路徑可以解決優(yōu)先購買權的保護問題,將優(yōu)先購買權納入強制締約的適用范圍,不符合強制締約制度本身的價值追求�；谄降葯�、反對締約歧視不能產生強制締約義務。首先,我國學者關于強制締約適用范圍的認識上很少將該種類型納入強制締約范圍;其次,我國司法實踐中也沒有關于平等權、反對締約歧視與強制締約關系的相關案例。作為合同成立的特殊形式,強制締約的適用范圍的準確界定,必須回歸到合同法“契約自由”的基本價值立場以及強制締約制度本身的價值立場上。由于強制締約制度是對契約自由原則的最大干預,因此必須嚴格限制強制締約的適用范圍。強制締約制度價值在于維護社會公共利益、保護弱勢群體以及保障公民的生命、身體和健康的基本權益,對是否納入強制締約適用范圍的判斷必須符合強制締約制度的上述價值立場�；谝陨戏治�,強制締約的適用范圍應當采狹義說。第一,強制締約必須基于法律的明確規(guī)定,間接強制締約不應屬于強制締約的適用范圍。第二,強制締約主要解決的是合同訂立問題,對于優(yōu)先購買權、平等權等通過其他理論可以解決的問題,不必納入強制締約的適用范圍。第三,對強制締約適用范圍的判斷必須回歸契約自由以及強制締約制度本身的價值立場。最后,從我國現行有關的法律法規(guī)的內容上看,強制締約的適用范圍應當是以下四種情況:1.公共承運人負擔的強制締約義務;2.供應電、水、氣、熱力等社會必需品的企業(yè)所負有的強制締約義務;3.執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師和醫(yī)院的強制締約義務;4.責任保險中的強制締約義務。
[Abstract]:Compulsory contracting is a special procedure for concluding a contract. There is a broad and narrow view of the scope of application of compulsory contracting. The controversy about the scope of application of compulsory contracting mainly shows two focal points: one is whether the right of preemption belongs to the scope of application of compulsory contracting; the other is based on the right of equality. The question of whether the right of preemption belongs to the scope of application of compulsory contracting should be considered in the nature of the right of preemption, which is the right of formation. There is no room and necessity for the application of the compulsory contracting system. At present, the judicial decision characterizes the preemptive right as the claim with compulsory contracting obligations, which is in fact a copy of the understanding and application of the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court. The path of formation right can solve the protection problem of preemption right and bring the preemptive right into the scope of application of compulsory contracting. It is not in accordance with the value pursuit of the compulsory contracting system itself. Based on the right of equality, opposing the contracting discrimination can not produce the compulsory contracting obligation. Firstly, the understanding of the scope of application of compulsory contracting rarely brings this type into the scope of compulsory contracting. Secondly, there are no relevant cases on the right of equality, against the relationship between contracting discrimination and compulsory contracting in our judicial practice. As a special form of contract formation, the scope of application of compulsory contracting is precisely defined. We must return to the basic value stand of "freedom of contract" of contract law and the value stand of the system of compulsory contracting, because the system of compulsory contracting is the biggest interference to the principle of freedom of contract. Therefore, the scope of application of compulsory contracting must be strictly limited. The value of compulsory contracting lies in safeguarding the public interest, protecting the vulnerable groups and safeguarding the basic rights and interests of citizens' life, body and health. Based on the above analysis, the scope of application of compulsory contracting should be narrowly defined. First, compulsory contracting must be based on the explicit provisions of the law. Indirect compulsory contracting should not belong to the scope of application of compulsory contracting. Second, compulsory contracting mainly solves the problem of contract formation, which can be solved by other theories, such as preemption right, equality right, etc. Third, the judgment of the scope of application of compulsory contracting must be returned to the freedom of contract and the value position of the compulsory contracting system. Finally, from the content of the relevant laws and regulations in our country, The scope of application of compulsory contracting shall be as follows: 1. Compulsory contracting obligations of the common carrier 2. Supply of electricity, water and gas, Compulsory contracting obligations of medical practitioners and hospitals. 4. Compulsory contracting obligations in liability insurance.
【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 崔建遠;;強制締約及其中國化[J];社會科學戰(zhàn)線;2006年05期

2 金瑞琴;;淺議強制締約制度[J];河北廣播電視大學學報;2008年06期

3 曹寧;;淺析強制締約[J];社會科學論壇(學術研究卷);2008年06期

4 Mark Voigtmann;;如何對付“強制締約”合同[J];軟件;2009年01期

5 李銀鳳;;論強制締約制度[J];知識經濟;2012年12期

6 李志明,張敏純;強制締約制度淺探[J];湖南行政學院學報;2003年03期

7 易軍;寧紅麗;;強制締約制度研究——兼論近代民法的嬗變與革新[J];法學家;2003年03期

8 蔣學躍;論強制締約[J];杭州商學院學報;2004年02期

9 郎克研;強制締約的適用分析[J];重慶交通學院學報(社會科學版);2005年03期

10 楊陳慧,陳陽,李明江;強制締約制度問題研究[J];臺聲.新視角;2005年01期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 姜叢華;盧方舟;;論強制締約[A];第三屆中國律師論壇論文集（實務卷）[C];2003年

相關重要報紙文章 前3條

1 浙江省寧波市鄞州區(qū)人民法院 郭敬波;“病人被轉院”凸現醫(yī)護擔責過重[N];人民法院報;2011年

2 中國人民大學民商事法律科學研究中心副主任、教授 楊立新;論強制交易行為的侵權責任[N];法治快報;2004年

3 胡坤;承租人能否請求與出租人強制締約[N];江蘇經濟報;2008年

相關碩士學位論文 前10條

1 莫飛燕;強制締約之理論與制度論析[D];中國政法大學;2008年

2 崔洋;強制締約適用的立法問題研究[D];大連理工大學;2010年

3 劉明;強制締約法律問題研究[D];鄭州大學;2009年

4 尹瑞峰;論我國強制締約制度[D];吉林大學;2012年

5 支明媛;論強制締約的適用規(guī)則[D];東北師范大學;2012年

6 王冰;強制締約適用范圍研究[D];吉林大學;2013年

7 牛穎;朱蘭英訴民航拒載殘疾人案法律分析[D];蘭州大學;2015年

8 張新;論預約[D];華東政法大學;2015年

9 王馳;論我國強制締約制度的完善[D];沈陽師范大學;2016年

10 崔婉瑩;網絡約車合同問題研究[D];吉林大學;2016年

，

本文編號：1692167