本文選題：旅游合同 + 消費(fèi)者保護(hù)��； 參考：《南昌大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著我國(guó)旅游市場(chǎng)的日益繁榮,旅游糾紛也隨之增多,而旅游合同本身引起的糾紛又是數(shù)量最多的。在旅游合同實(shí)際履行的過(guò)程中,提供旅游服務(wù)的是旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者,而旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者并不是與旅游者簽訂旅游合同的主體。當(dāng)旅游者參加由旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者提供的旅游活動(dòng)而發(fā)生人身?yè)p害、財(cái)產(chǎn)損失時(shí),由于我國(guó)《旅游法》對(duì)旅游合同糾紛中民事責(zé)任的分配規(guī)制的不夠完善,旅游者應(yīng)當(dāng)如何主張自己的權(quán)利成為了旅游合同糾紛中的一個(gè)焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。本文采用案例分析法,整理了自1999年至2016年“中國(guó)法院裁判文書(shū)網(wǎng)”中數(shù)千個(gè)關(guān)于旅游合同糾紛的案例。為了更好的剖析具體案例,筆者從中選取了《最高人民法院公報(bào)》上公布的與“旅游合同糾紛”有關(guān)的兩例典型案例。對(duì)典型案例進(jìn)行剖析,提煉出案例背后的理論內(nèi)涵。同時(shí),運(yùn)用類(lèi)型化的方法,在旅游合同糾紛的責(zé)任研究中,以是否完全履行“安全保障義務(wù)”作為分類(lèi)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)者和旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者的民事責(zé)任劃分為違約責(zé)任和侵權(quán)責(zé)任進(jìn)行研究。本文共分為六章,除去引言和結(jié)論部分:第二章選取了旅游合同糾紛中的兩個(gè)典型案例,詳細(xì)介紹了案例的基本情況,通過(guò)法院的審判要旨和當(dāng)事人的爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn),引申出兩個(gè)典型案例的共同焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題。第三章闡述旅游合同的法律性質(zhì)。旅游合同是一種以追求精神愉悅為目的的消費(fèi)合同。在履行旅游合同的過(guò)程中,旅游安全對(duì)于旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)至關(guān)重要,是實(shí)現(xiàn)旅游合同目的的前提和保障。但在實(shí)際的旅游活動(dòng)中,為了提高旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)效率,可能會(huì)出現(xiàn)第三方即旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者提供旅游服務(wù)的情況。這就導(dǎo)致法律關(guān)系變得更為復(fù)雜,還涉及到了民事連帶責(zé)任的問(wèn)題。第四章具體分析旅游合同糾紛中的違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任。旅游合同違約責(zé)任和旅游行為侵權(quán)責(zé)任是旅游合同糾紛中常見(jiàn)的兩種責(zé)任類(lèi)型,這兩種責(zé)任的特征、構(gòu)成要件和歸責(zé)原則各不相同。當(dāng)一個(gè)旅游合同糾紛中同時(shí)發(fā)生以上兩種責(zé)任競(jìng)合時(shí),應(yīng)當(dāng)賦予旅游者以選擇權(quán)。第五章進(jìn)一步就旅游合同糾紛中民事責(zé)任的承擔(dān)與分配進(jìn)行分析。依據(jù)產(chǎn)生民事責(zé)任的原因,將旅游合同糾紛中的民事責(zé)任分為三大類(lèi),即“由旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)輔助者引起的民事責(zé)任”、“由旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)者引起的民事責(zé)任”和“由與旅游業(yè)經(jīng)營(yíng)者無(wú)任何法律聯(lián)系的第三人引起的民事責(zé)任”。在不同情況下對(duì)三類(lèi)責(zé)任進(jìn)行分析,并對(duì)其進(jìn)行合理分配。
[Abstract]:With the increasing prosperity of tourism market in China, the number of disputes caused by tourism contract is the most. In the process of carrying out the tourism contract, the tourist service provider is the tourist management assistant, and the tourist management assistant is not the main body of the tourism contract signed with the tourist. When tourists take part in tourism activities provided by tourism operators and suffer personal injury and property losses, the distribution of civil liability in tourism contract disputes is not perfect due to the lack of regulation on the distribution of civil liability in tourism contract disputes in China's Tourism Law. How tourists should claim their rights has become a focal issue in the dispute of tourism contract. Using the method of case analysis, this paper collates thousands of cases about disputes of tourism contract in China Court judgment documents Network from 1999 to 2016. In order to better analyze the specific cases, the author selects two typical cases related to the "dispute of tourism contract" published in the Bulletin of the Supreme people's Court. Analyze the typical cases and extract the theoretical connotation behind the cases. At the same time, using the method of type, in the study of the liability of the dispute of tourism contract, the classification standard is whether to fulfill the "obligation of safety and security" completely. The civil liability of tourism operators and tourism operators is divided into breach liability and tort liability. This paper is divided into six chapters, apart from the introduction and conclusion: the second chapter selects two typical cases in the dispute of tourism contract, introduces the basic situation of the case in detail, through the court of the main points of the trial and the focus of the dispute between the parties. The common focus of the two typical cases is derived. The third chapter expounds the legal nature of tourism contract. Tourism contract is a kind of consumption contract for the purpose of pursuing spiritual pleasure. In the process of carrying out the tourism contract, the tourism safety is very important to the tourism management, and is the premise and guarantee to realize the purpose of the tourism contract. However, in the actual tourism activities, in order to improve the efficiency of tourism management, there may be a situation in which the third party, that is, the assistant of tourism management, provides tourism services. This leads to a more complex legal relationship and involves the issue of joint and several civil liability. Chapter four analyzes the liability of breach of contract and tort in the dispute of tourism contract. The liability for breach of contract and tort liability for tourism act are two common types of liability in the dispute of tourism contract. The characteristics, constitutive requirements and imputation principle of these two kinds of liability are different. When the two kinds of responsibilities coincide in a dispute of tourism contract, tourists should be given the right of choice. The fifth chapter further analyzes the civil liability in tourism contract disputes. According to the causes of civil liability, the civil liability in tourism contract disputes is divided into three categories, that is, "the civil liability caused by the assistant of tourism management". "Civil liability by tourism operators" and "civil liability by third parties not having any legal connection with tourism operators". Under different circumstances, the three kinds of responsibilities are analyzed and reasonably distributed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南昌大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張平華;;論連帶責(zé)任的追償權(quán)——以侵權(quán)連帶責(zé)任為中心的考察[J];法學(xué)論壇;2015年05期

2 藍(lán)壽榮;周艷芳;;論消費(fèi)者傾斜性保護(hù)的邏輯[J];南昌大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2015年03期

3 馬立釗;;連帶與不真正連帶關(guān)系辨析[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)輯刊;2015年03期

4 葉金強(qiáng);;旅游糾紛中的連帶責(zé)任——以“焦建軍與中山國(guó)旅等旅游侵權(quán)糾紛案”為參照[J];法學(xué);2015年02期

5 藍(lán)壽榮;;休息何以成為權(quán)利——?jiǎng)趧?dòng)者休息權(quán)的屬性與價(jià)值探析[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2014年04期

6 薛杉;;旅游糾紛民事責(zé)任配置若干問(wèn)題研究——以“焦建軍旅游侵權(quán)糾紛案”為中心[J];政治與法律;2014年07期

7 劉凱湘;吳才毓;;論旅行社轉(zhuǎn)團(tuán)的法律關(guān)系與責(zé)任承擔(dān)——基于一個(gè)典型案例的解釋[J];法學(xué)雜志;2014年04期

8 周江洪;;從“旅游輔助服務(wù)者”到“履行輔助人”[J];旅游學(xué)刊;2013年09期

9 栗娟;;旅游糾紛共同侵權(quán)行為的認(rèn)定[J];人民司法;2013年10期

10 楊立新;;論競(jìng)合侵權(quán)行為[J];清華法學(xué);2013年01期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 張寶華;馬德健;;旅游合同糾紛中的不真正連帶責(zé)任[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

2 藍(lán)壽榮;;我們?cè)撟非笫裁礃拥墓絒N];人民日?qǐng)?bào)海外版;2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 羅小英;我國(guó)旅游侵權(quán)民事責(zé)任及其權(quán)利救濟(jì)探析[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2014年

2 張潔;旅游合同中旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的民事責(zé)任[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

3 馮鐘鳴;我國(guó)旅游糾紛的民事責(zé)任認(rèn)定與解決機(jī)制研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2012年

4 馬曾;熊自平訴四川省國(guó)旅旅游合同糾紛等案的法律分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號(hào)：1924057