【作者】 陈颖；

【导师】 龙卫球；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 比较法学， 2015， 硕士

【摘要】 本文所探讨的问题是,在合同领域中,我国重大误解的规则应如何进行解释。第一章从实证主义视角解读我国现行法中的重大误解规则,以作为后续的研究奠定基础。在介绍法官所面临的现实案情后,本文以法律规范的文义以及最高人民法院在司法实践中的见解为依据,分析了重大误解各要件的内涵,兼论及该规则的法律后果以及学说争论的现状。第二章所研究的问题,是引入德国意思表示错误理论来解释我国重大误解规则是否可行,并得出了否定性的结论。德国意思表示错误理论系从意思主义出发的理论体系,其将错误是否可救济的标准确定为错误是否发生于意思表示的表达阶段。追溯由来,这是萨维尼将错误法统合入意思表示理论的理论尝试的产物,但萨维尼本身也末将此理论贯彻始终。《德国民法典》虽然吸收了这一基本理论框架,却又同时在法典内外发展了许多与之相偏离的缓和性制度、适用例外规定及实践操作。在此基础上,本文得出结论,由于文本结构上的不同,我国一旦继受意思表示错误理论对重大误解规则进行解释,则将面临表意人与相对人利益失衡的结果。因此意思表示错误理论的继受并不可取。第三章遵从同样的思路探讨了德国交易基础瑕疵的可继受性。在简介该理论的由来及基本内容的基础上,本文认为交易基础瑕疵理论无论在价值立场,还是文本结构上都与我国合同领域中的重大误解规则具有相容性。因此,继受此学说作为我国合同领域重大误解规则的背景理论是可行的。第四章是在前述舍弃德国意思表示错误,转采德国交易基础瑕疵理论为参照系的基本立场上,对我国合同重大误解规则解释论发展的探讨。首先讨论的是重大误解规则与意思表示解释之间的关系。本文认为意思表示解释的处理在逻辑上先于重大误解规则的适用,但两种制度应当在不同的利益衡量的层面上各自发挥独立的作用。其次,本章探讨了重大误解的构成要件。本文认为重大误解规则所要解决的,是意思形成阶段的认识错误的可救济性问题,而这一问题可以援引交易基础瑕疵的判断准则进行处理。最后,本文对重大误解规则法律后果进行讨论,认为对其的解释也可以借鉴德国交易基础瑕疵理论进行处理。结论部分总结了全文的观点。更多还原

【Abstract】 The problem discussed in this Article is how the rule of mistakes(重大误解规则)in the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China should be interpreted.Chapter 1 of the article is a comprehensive restatement of the currently binding rule of mistakes in China from the positive perspective, which serves as the foundation of further discussions. After an introduction of the actual situations that the judges are faced with, this article analyzes the definitions of each elements of the concept of “mistake”, based on the wording of statutes and the holdings of the Supreme People’s Court. The legal effects and the disputed theories in relation to the rule are also discussed in this chapter.Chapter 2 discusses the feasibility to transplant the German theory into China, which means to interpret the rule of mistakes in China with the German theory of “mistakes in the declaration of the will”. The discussion of this issue leads to a negative result. The German theory of mistake is will-oriented, which means whether the mistake should be relieved depends on whether the mistake emerges during the process of declaration. The origin of this theory is the attempt of Sagviny to integrate the theory of mistakes into the theory of declaration of will. But even Sagviny himself failed to insist on this position. Although the German civil code accepted this theory, many compensating institutions, exception rules and business practice have been developed inside and outside the civil code, which all aim to mitigate the effects of the will-oriented mistake theory. Based on the above analyses, the author draws the conclusion that the interests balance between the contracting parties cannot be achieved in Chinese law if the German theory were introduced to interpret the rule of mistakes in China, because the statute structure of the rules in both countries are different.Chapter 3 of the article discusses the feasibility of transplanting the German theory of “Destruction of contracting basis”. After an introduction of the origin and content of the theory, the article concludes that the transplantation is feasible. Because the institute of “Destruction of contracting basis” and the rule of mistake in the Chinese contract law are similar in terms of legal texts and value orientation.Chapter 4 of this article discusses the expected development of the interpretation theory. Concerning the relation between the rule of mistake and the rule of contract construction, the article argues that the second problem must be solved before the first one and that both rules shall play different roles in balancing the interests of the contracting parties. Concerning the meaning of the concept of “mistake”, the article concludes that the main problem of the rule of mistake is to separate the remediable mistakes from unremediable ones during the motive phase. And this problem can be solved with the theory of “Destruction of contracting basis”. Also, this theory can offer a model for the interpretation of the legal effects of the rule of mistake.The conclusion part sumarises the opinions of the whole article.更多还原