論締約過失責(zé)任的損害賠償范圍
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-03 20:02
本文選題：締約過失責(zé)任 + 信賴?yán)?/strong>�。� 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2008年碩士論文
【摘要】： 締約過失責(zé)任,是指在合同訂立過程中,一方因違背其依據(jù)誠實(shí)信用原則所應(yīng)盡的義務(wù),而致另一方的信賴?yán)娴膿p失,所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的民事責(zé)任。因其與合同有關(guān),所以它與合同責(zé)任之間的關(guān)系比較密切,但卻又與合同履行中所產(chǎn)生的侵權(quán)責(zé)任和違約責(zé)任有所不同�！吨腥A人民共和國合同法》第42條、第43條規(guī)定了締約過失行為所應(yīng)承擔(dān)的損害賠償責(zé)任,但對締約過失責(zé)任的性質(zhì)、類型規(guī)定過于簡略,且損害賠償?shù)木唧w范圍也沒有確定。導(dǎo)致了司法實(shí)踐存在盲區(qū),不能對相關(guān)民事爭議作出公平、公正的決斷。從而,不能充分保護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益、解決矛盾爭端。因此,明確締約過失責(zé)任的界定和賠償范圍對于充分保護(hù)締約當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益、正確處理民事糾紛,具有重要意義。故本文將就締約過失責(zé)任的內(nèi)涵、適用范圍、存在狀態(tài)、價(jià)值取向、分類、賠償依據(jù)、賠償范圍、賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等問題進(jìn)行討論。并從比較法的角度,聯(lián)系實(shí)際說明了締約過失責(zé)任與違約責(zé)任和侵權(quán)責(zé)任的聯(lián)系與區(qū)別,闡明了締約過失責(zé)任是合同責(zé)任的必要補(bǔ)充之觀點(diǎn)。以期對這一在《中華人民共和國合同法》中規(guī)定較為抽象和籠統(tǒng)的概念展開詳述,提出觀點(diǎn)、理清思路。本文的論述重點(diǎn)在于明確了非加害性和加害性締約過失責(zé)任損害賠償?shù)牟煌秶�；通過討論信賴?yán)婧吐男欣娴年P(guān)系,論證了締約過失責(zé)任賠償范圍一般基于信賴?yán)?并以履行利益為限,又不完全囿于履行利益的觀點(diǎn)；并提出了賠償范圍包括受害人的直接損失和間接損失以及作為間接損失重要內(nèi)容的機(jī)會利益損失的具體賠償標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。通過一系列注重司法實(shí)踐的論述,來有利于進(jìn)一步完善締約過失責(zé)任制度。從而希望能夠在司法實(shí)踐中重視先合同義務(wù)的履行,對侵害先合同義務(wù)的行為明確賠償范圍和標(biāo)準(zhǔn),更好地保護(hù)締約當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益。
[Abstract]:The liability for fault in concluding a contract refers to the civil liability that one party should bear because of the breach of its obligations according to the principle of good faith and the loss of the trust interest of the other party during the conclusion of the contract. Because it is related to the contract, it has a close relationship with the contractual liability, but it is different from the tort liability and the breach of contract arising from the performance of the contract. Article 42 of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China, Article 43 sets out the liability for compensation for damages due to the act of fault in contracting a treaty, but the nature and type of liability for fault in conclusion are too brief, and the specific scope of compensation for damages is not determined. As a result, there are blind areas in judicial practice, which cannot make a fair and just decision on civil disputes. Thus, the legitimate rights and interests of the parties cannot be fully protected, and conflicts and disputes can be resolved. Therefore, it is of great significance to define the liability for fault in contracting and the scope of compensation for fully protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the contracting parties and correctly handling civil disputes. Therefore, this paper will discuss the connotation, scope of application, state of existence, value orientation, classification, compensation basis, compensation scope, compensation standard and so on. From the point of view of comparative law, this paper illustrates the relationship and difference between fault liability for contracting and liability for breach of contract and tort liability, and clarifies that the liability for fault in contract is a necessary supplement to the liability of contract. It is expected that this concept, which is more abstract and general in contract Law of the people's Republic of China, can be described in detail, put forward its point of view and clarify its train of thought. The main point of this paper is to clarify the different scope of compensation for non-injurious and injurious contractual negligence liability, and to demonstrate that the scope of compensation for contractual negligence liability is generally based on trust interest by discussing the relationship between reliance interest and performance interest. The author also points out that the scope of compensation includes the direct loss and indirect loss of the victim and the concrete standard of compensation for the loss of opportunity interest as an important content of indirect loss. Through a series of argumentation focusing on judicial practice, it is helpful to perfect the system of fault liability in contracting. It is hoped that the performance of the prior contract obligation can be emphasized in judicial practice and the scope and standard of compensation for the infringement of the prior contract obligation should be defined so as to better protect the lawful rights and interests of the contracting parties.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2008
【分類號】：D923.6
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 吳智永,張敏;締約過失責(zé)任三題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年02期
2 馬新彥;信賴與信賴?yán)婵糩J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年03期
3 錢玉林;締約過失責(zé)任與誠信原則的適用[J];法律科學(xué).西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年04期
4 姜淑明;先合同義務(wù)及違反先合同義務(wù)之責(zé)任形態(tài)研究[J];法商研究(中南政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2000年02期
5 李霖;締約過失責(zé)任制度研究——兼評我國《合同法》中相關(guān)制度之完善[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1999年05期
6 田國興;締約過失責(zé)任理論的產(chǎn)生及其各國立法演變[J];石油大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);1998年04期
7 張丹丹;締約過失責(zé)任與契約自由原則的沖突與協(xié)調(diào)[J];行政與法(吉林省行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2003年08期
8 王秋實(shí);締約過失責(zé)任制度及其適用[J];陰山學(xué)刊;1999年04期
9 焦富民;論締約過失責(zé)任制度——兼評合同自由與合同正義[J];揚(yáng)州大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會科學(xué)版);2002年05期
，本文編號：2094843
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2094843.html
最近更新
教材專著
