【作者】 谭和平；

【导师】 李双元；

【作者基本信息】 湖南师范大学 ， 国际法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 国内外学者就意思表示理论,其中包括意思表示瑕疵理论,进行研究的颇多,专家们在意思表示瑕疵理论研究方面也取得了较多的重要成果。但我国正处于民法典构建的酝酿阶段,尽管外国的相关理论与立法己比较成熟,但要将其很好地运用到中国的立法中来,尚需进一步完善,亦有进一步研究与创新的必要。意思表示的概念与结构、意思表示的构成要素、意思表示瑕疵的成因以及意思表示瑕疵与法律行为的成立与生效是相互联系的、密不可分的。没有意思表示的概念与结构就没有意思表示的构成要素；没有意思表示的构成要素就没有意思表示瑕疵的成因。文章认为作为法律行为的意思表示与日常语言中的意思表示应该加以区分,同时也应将作为法律行为的意思表示与其他表示行为如意思通知、观念通知、感情表示等区别开来。在现有的意思表示的“三要素说”、“四要素说”甚至“五要素说”的争辩中,文章认为意思表示的“三要素说”是意思表示真实构成的基础。同时,文章认为,在当今社会本位时代,在意思主义、表示主义及折衷主义三种理论中,“折衷主义”的观点,更具有现实意义。也就是说,原则上意思表示有效,在意思表示存在瑕疵的情况下,法律行为的效力可以是可撤销的。错误的共同渊源产生于罗马法与亚里士多德学派。有人主张错误理论已经发展得比较一致了。然而,这种观点有待于进一步的证实。我们必须看到,即使在法国与德国法律传统中,错误概念的发展也存在明显的差异。意思理论的出现更标志着英美法系与大陆法系错误理论更加明显的分歧。此外,有人主张：错误的英国观点并不适合于两种理论中的任何一种。错误涉及的核心问题是：错误是否损毁了当事人的同意；错误引起的相关问题是：当事人的意思与动机问题。中世纪的法学家因此在意思自治与动机问题上补充了罗马法的错误概念。欺诈是对事实的虚假陈述,当事人明知它的虚假性或者全然不顾它的真假而做出的行为,目的是希望另一方当事人按照他说的去做,以及事实上导致另一方当事人按照他说的去做了却给自己带来了损害。在欺诈的构成要件上,两大法系均强调主观的故意性、行为的非法性及客观后果的严重性；在第三人欺诈的法律后果上,各法系间存在截然不同的分歧：有的着眼于受欺诈人的保护,有的着眼于合同相对人的信赖利益。文章认为,在明知的情形下,在当事人存在披露义务的前提下,受欺诈人可以撤销合同；在推定明知的情形下,尽管这种做法对受欺诈人有一定的积极作用,但可能导致合同相对人否认知情的后果。胁迫,作为同意的瑕疵,类似于欺诈但有别于错误,它主要由两个独特的要素构成。一个是意思瑕疵(譬如恐惧)；一个是违背道德义务的原因(譬如强迫或威胁)。然而,第一个要件等同于事实上违背了签约双方的自由意志；第二个要件则局限于某种外部条件,在这种条件下当事人的意思瑕疵可能产生。然而,受胁迫人是否存在真正意志?存在两种不同的观点：一种观点认为,受胁迫者的同意没有反映任何自由与真正的意思；一种观点主张,受害人的同意是一种真正的同意。由此导致两种不同的法律后果,一种是合同无效；一种是合同可撤销。然而总的来说,自萨维尼以来,流行的观点主张：受胁迫人的同意是真实的,尽管存在瑕疵。在“可敬畏的恐惧”是否成为胁迫要件的问题上,大陆法与普通法朝着两个相反的方向发展。大陆法系选择了将可敬畏的胁迫从胁迫的范围中排除出去的做法,而在普通法国家,可敬畏的胁迫却产生了一种广义的衡平法学说,它部分地弥补了过于狭窄的普通法胁迫学说的不足。不当影响是英美法独有的立法与理论,其产生于胁迫自身缺陷的大前提。通常它分为“事实上的不当影响”与“推定的不当影响”。后者又有“2A类不当影响”与“2B类不当影响”的界定。由于该学说与欺诈、胁迫有着千丝万缕的联系,因此,其一产生以来就争议不断。争议的焦点在于不当影响的认定的模糊性与不确定性。文章认为,它对胁迫、欺诈、错误等传统的意思表示瑕疵立法具有拾遗补缺的作用,目前的标准可以借鉴美国法院的做法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Many scholars at home and abroad are going in for the study of the theory of declaration of intention, including the principle of defects of declaration of intention. Jurists have also made great progress in this area. But forming work of the code of civil law is in the embryonic stage, although the theories and legislation of the defect in the expression of declaration of will have been mature, it is quite necessary for us to apply the theories and relative legislation to improve our civil law,or even to form our own civil code.The concept and the structure of declaration of intention, its basic factors, its causation and the relationship between the formation and effectivity of legal act and declaration of intention are closely related to each other. Without the concept and structure of declaration of intention there is not basic elements of declaration of intention; Without basic elements of declaration of intention there does not exist the causation of declaration of intention: The article holds that we shall differ the expression of intention in legal act from declaration of intention in everyday language. Meanwhile, without making clear the concept of declaration of intention we are able to tell the differences between declaration of intention as legal act and declaration of intention in everyday expressions. At present, there exists the dispute of" the theory of three elements of intent-indication","the theory of four elements of intent-indication" and "the theory of five elements of intent-indication". But the article holds that "the theory of three elements of intent-indication" is the basic of formation of intent-indication. At the same time, author feels among these three theories:"the principle of will","the principle of expression "and "the principle of electicism" in the society nowadays, the view of the principle of eclecticism is more meaningful. That is to say, in principle expression of will is effective, but in the circumstances that expression of will is imperfect, the validity of legal act is revocable.Mistake has common origins deriving from Roman law and the Aristotelian scholastic tradition. Nonetheless, even though it may be contended that mistake has developed uniformly, a closer look at mistake shows that this contention must be qualified. However, it will be seen that even though in the Civil Law, the evolution of the concept of mistake in the French and German legal traditions has been very different. The advent of the will theory marks a more clear-cut divergence of mistake theories in European legal systems. In addition, It is contended that the English view of mistake does not fit either of these theories. The central question which is relative to mistake is whether mistake destroys the parties’consent; An interrelated question that mistake raises is that of the will and intention of the parties. Medieval jurists thus added on the question of autonomous intention and will to the Roman law conception of mistake.Fraud is a false representation of fact, made with knowledge of its falsehood, or in reckless disregard whether it is true or false, with the intention that it shall be acted upon by the other party, and actually inducing him to act upon it to his injury. On the basic elements of formation of fraud, two legal systems stress the subjective intention, the illegality of act and the seriousness of objective consequence; As to the legal effects about the deception of a third person, obvious differences exist in different legal system. Some pay more attention to the protection of the defrauded, some pay more stress on the interest of the other party in the contract. The article believes that a party has the duty to inform the other party where he has known the fraud, so the defrauded has the right to avoid the contract; where the deception is presumed, although this measure helps to the defrauded, it may induce the other party of the contract to deny the fact the he knows the deception.Coercion as a defect of consent-like deception but unlike mistake-combines two distinct elements, namely a volitional defect(i.e. fear)with a morally reprehensible cause(i.e. duress or threat).While the first requirement identifies the factor which actually vitiates a contracting party’s free volition, the second constitutes a restriction as to the circumstances from which a party’s defect of volition may arise. But does coactus have true will? As for this, there are two different opinions. The first view holds that the coactus’consent does not reflect any free and genuine volition; The second argues that the coactus’consent is a true consent. Nonetheless, since Savigny the prevailing view argued that a coactus’consent was real despite being tainted with a defect. As to the question whether "reverential fear" is the element forming coercion, the law of duress developed in opposite directions in Civil Law and Common Law. While Civil Law systems opted for the exclusion of metus reverentialis from the purview of duress, metus reverntialis gave rise to an expansive equitable doctrine in Common Law countries that partially amends for the shortcomings of a too narrowly conceived common law doctrine of duress.Undue influence is the speciality of the legislation and theory in the Common Law. It originates from the defects of the legislation and theory of coercion. Usually, it is divided into actual undue influence and presumed undue influence. And the latter is divided into class2A and class2B undue influence. Because of countless linkage between this concept and fraud and coercion, the argument about the concept since it was born. And the arguments focus on the question how undue influence is affirmed because of its uncertainty and ambiguity. But the article holds that it plays some peculiar part in the perfection of the legislation and theory like coercion, fraud and mistake, the present standard of affirming undue influence may refer to the way in which the federal courts in the U.S deal with this problem.更多还原