本文選題：預(yù)約合同 + 違約責(zé)任��； 參考：《海南大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：預(yù)約的本質(zhì)是一種合同,我國合同法中并未對預(yù)約制度做出明確規(guī)定,僅在相關(guān)司法解釋中有所涉及。最高人民法院《關(guān)于審理買賣合同糾紛案件適用法律問題的解釋》(以下簡稱買賣合同解釋)第二條指出違反預(yù)約合同需要承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任。但該條規(guī)定過于籠統(tǒng),并未對預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任的具體承擔(dān)形式作出說明,理論中爭議不斷,司法實(shí)踐中相同的案子有時也會出現(xiàn)大相徑庭的結(jié)果。因此,對預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任進(jìn)行深入探討,不僅是對理論的豐富,也能對實(shí)踐產(chǎn)生指導(dǎo)作用。本文分為三部分對預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任問題進(jìn)行研究。第一部分是我國預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任立法、司法現(xiàn)狀及存在的問題。首先,從立法的角度看,我國對預(yù)約合同法律責(zé)任的規(guī)定還未形成全面規(guī)范的體系。僅僅憑借兩條司法解釋顯得過于單薄,難以應(yīng)對現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中紛繁復(fù)雜的預(yù)約合同糾紛。其次,通過檢索、篩選和對比分析我國相關(guān)實(shí)務(wù)案例,可以發(fā)現(xiàn)爭議主要集中在預(yù)約合同可否強(qiáng)制履行和預(yù)約合同違約損害賠償?shù)姆秶@兩個方面,裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)并不統(tǒng)一。第二部分是預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任的比較法考察。美國法根據(jù)預(yù)約類型的不同賦予不同的締約義務(wù)。德國法以支持締約請求為原則,且允許訴訟合并。瑞士法支持以強(qiáng)制方式締結(jié)本約,不允許越過締約之訴而直接訴請強(qiáng)制履行。至于損害賠償,德國法院和瑞士法院均認(rèn)為本約履行利益也是預(yù)約的損失。通過對德國、瑞士和美國有關(guān)預(yù)約法律制度的對比與分析,我國應(yīng)在合同法中對預(yù)約合同加以明確,同時對預(yù)約合同的適用范圍不應(yīng)加諸多限制。第三部分是我國預(yù)約合同違約責(zé)任爭議問題之分析。預(yù)約合同,作為合同的一種,理應(yīng)適用合同法之一般原理,當(dāng)出現(xiàn)違約情形時,守約方可訴請強(qiáng)制履行合同。預(yù)約合同以將來阻礙情形消除時訂立本約為最終目的,強(qiáng)制履行可以很好的實(shí)現(xiàn)這個目的。預(yù)約合同損害賠償范圍應(yīng)以信賴?yán)鏋橄?預(yù)約合同畢竟有別于本約合同,賠償責(zé)任應(yīng)有所區(qū)別。在訂立預(yù)約合同時,本約的具體交易尚未發(fā)生,故不存在履行利益。而信賴?yán)尜r償時應(yīng)將機(jī)會利益包含在內(nèi),以彌補(bǔ)守約一方因各種原因而無法再尋找替代交易行為之損失。
[Abstract]:The essence of reservation is a kind of contract, which is not clearly stipulated in the contract law of our country, but only involved in the relevant judicial interpretation. Article 2 of the Supreme people's Court on the interpretation of the legal issues applicable to the hearing of disputes over Sale and purchase contracts (hereinafter referred to as the interpretation of the Sale contract) Article 2 points out that breach of an appointment contract shall be liable for breach of contract. However, this provision is too general, does not explain the specific form of contractual liability for breach of contract, theory is constantly controversial, judicial practice of the same cases will sometimes appear very different results. Therefore, it is not only rich in theory, but also instructive to practice to probe into the liability for breach of contract. This article divides into three parts to carry on the research to the reservation contract breach responsibility question. The first part is the legislation, judicial status and existing problems of the liability for breach of contract. First of all, from the legislative point of view, China has not yet formed a comprehensive normative system for the legal liability of appointment contracts. Just relying on two judicial explanations is too weak to deal with the complicated contract disputes in real life. Secondly, through the search, screening and comparative analysis of relevant practical cases in China, we can find that the dispute mainly focuses on whether the appointment contract can be enforced and the scope of the contract for breach of contract damages, and the judgment standard is not uniform. The second part is a comparative study of the liability for breach of contract. American law assigns different contracting obligations according to the type of reservation. German law is based on the principle of supporting the contracting claim and allows for the joinder of proceedings. Swiss law supports the conclusion of this treaty by force and does not allow direct application for enforcement. As for damages, both the German and Swiss courts held that the performance of the contract was also an advance loss. Through the comparison and analysis of the legal system of reservation in Germany, Switzerland and the United States, it is suggested that our country should define the contract of appointment in the contract law, and at the same time, should not add many restrictions on the scope of application of the contract of appointment. The third part is the analysis of the disputes about the liability for breach of contract in our country. Appointment contract, as a kind of contract, should be applied to the general principle of contract law. The purpose of an appointment contract is to conclude this contract in the future when obstacles are removed, which can be well achieved by compulsory performance. The scope of precontract damages should be limited by reliance interest. After all, the reservation contract is different from this contract, and the liability should be different. At the time of the conclusion of the contract, the specific transaction of this contract has not taken place, so there is no interest in performance. In order to make up for the loss of the parties to the contract, they can no longer find a substitute for the transaction behavior due to various reasons.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 錢玉林;預(yù)約合同初論[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年04期

2 蔣光福;;企業(yè)預(yù)約合同的效力與責(zé)任[J];企業(yè)改革與管理;2005年12期

3 周小蘭;;淺談預(yù)約合同的法律效力[J];法制與社會;2008年32期

4 李會軍;;預(yù)約合同概論——以比較法為視角[J];法制與社會;2009年03期

5 安玉霞;;預(yù)約合同制度探析[J];今日南國(理論創(chuàng)新版);2009年04期

6 郝晨宇;;預(yù)約合同的法律效力——由一個案例引發(fā)的反思[J];企業(yè)導(dǎo)報;2011年02期

7 劉惠芹;;預(yù)約合同的法理探析[J];江蘇經(jīng)貿(mào)職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年02期

8 劉樹凱;;論預(yù)約合同的理論基礎(chǔ)與制度價值[J];財(cái)經(jīng)界(學(xué)術(shù)版);2011年05期

9 艾爍;趙晶;;澳門與內(nèi)地商品房預(yù)售之預(yù)約合同的法律比較[J];石家莊職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年05期

10 王洪喜;;論預(yù)約合同糾紛的處理[J];現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟(jì)信息;2012年10期

相關(guān)會議論文 前2條

1 何強(qiáng);;預(yù)約合同的實(shí)踐應(yīng)用與常見問題[A];中國合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

2 任鵬飛;;論違反商品房認(rèn)購協(xié)議的法律責(zé)任[A];中國合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 張文章;是預(yù)約合同還是本約合同成焦點(diǎn)[N];中國消費(fèi)者報;2008年

2 徐積民;鋼鐵現(xiàn)貨預(yù)約合同交易忙備戰(zhàn)[N];現(xiàn)代物流報;2008年

3 蘇州市中級人民法院 劉正方邋鐘毅;預(yù)約合同解除,定金應(yīng)予返還[N];人民法院報;2007年

4 羅愛軍邋記者 韓焱;預(yù)約合同解除訂金應(yīng)返還[N];咸陽日報;2007年

5 南京大學(xué)法學(xué)院 孫彩萍;從一起案例看預(yù)約合同的責(zé)任承擔(dān)[N];江蘇法制報;2008年

6 王曉杰;預(yù)約合同制度可以控制交易效力[N];中國經(jīng)濟(jì)導(dǎo)報;2008年

7 單雪晴　黃翔翔;預(yù)約合同責(zé)任承擔(dān)[N];江蘇法制報;2011年

8 山東省濱州市中級人民法院 高立俊 張英波;預(yù)約合同不能被判決繼續(xù)履行[N];人民法院報;2013年

9 張婧;訂單農(nóng)業(yè)違約如何救濟(jì)[N];檢察日報;2007年

10 江西省于都縣人民法院 曾照旭　王鋒;學(xué)校收取的定位費(fèi)能否退還[N];人民法院報;2009年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 尹衍春;預(yù)約合同研究[D];山東大學(xué);2008年

2 張利;預(yù)約合同法律問題研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2008年

3 王海燕;預(yù)約合同制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2009年

4 馮光輝;預(yù)約合同制度研究[D];河北大學(xué);2007年

5 李競雄;預(yù)約合同法律效力研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

6 閆炳如;預(yù)約合同的若干問題探析[D];煙臺大學(xué);2011年

7 周慶剛;預(yù)約合同研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2005年

8 王蓉;預(yù)約合同研究[D];山東大學(xué);2007年

9 閆冰;預(yù)約合同的有名化及其規(guī)制[D];內(nèi)蒙古大學(xué);2007年

10 石曉莉;預(yù)約合同制度探究[D];四川大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號：1897037