【作者】 王宝莅；

【导师】 江平；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2003， 博士

【摘要】 一、傻子理论笔者是一个台湾的法律实务工作者，在台湾从事律师实务工作多年，主要的职务就是代人草拟合同、代理诉讼，多年的工作经验让笔者感触很多，不吐不快。多年以来笔者心中一直盘桓着一个问题：合同到底保护了好人还是聪明人？合同法的宗旨是保护好人，可是往往适得其反。现代经济理论乃是假定着人是“理性人”、“经济人”，在经济活动中可以对自己的利益了如指掌。但是真相往往是好心人变成被讥笑的傻子。优质的合同规范不该只是让傻子鼻青脸肿以后，愈变愈聪明；能去保护傻子的合同规范才是优质的合同规范。这里所谓的傻子其实可以广义来讲，包括“心太软”而作出允诺；专业分工社会涉及专业领域的合同，一般人无法了解(例如医疗合同、律师合同、科技方面的合同等)，致生的“无知状态下作出允诺”；还有，就是双方都“傻”而作出允诺。所以，在社会分工细密、私利驱动性强的情况下，人人都可能在某一个合同时空下成为“傻子”，对傻子的保护遂成为迫不及待之事。传统合同法显然有一个根本的缺陷，它先假定着每个人都是“理性人”，对自己的利益可以作有效率的掌握；而且合同是建立在一个单调的基础上，即双方(或多方)“对立”的意思发生合致时，合同就成立了，合同的内容亦于焉“一体成型”。在这种“既理性又对立”的梦幻组合之下，弱者自然是溃不成军。我们可以很容易发见，一个合同的诞生并不当然等于它就此可以完全履行，一个瓜瓜落地的婴儿绝不可能立时站起来走路，合同的履行往往是一个成长的过程而非一蹴可几。当然我们可以试着把合同预先定得详详细细，然后“照表操课”，可是，实践中发现，完完全全可以照表操课的合同，几乎未之有也，合同过程中的大大小小事先未预料到的事，比比皆是，碰上一个死脑筋的债权人，肯定让债务人苦头吃尽。所以，“照表操课”绝非唯一的履行模式，合同中显然还有其它的东西。每一个合同都有一个根，那就是合同当事人“共同”欲达成的“目的”，如果缺了这个根，合同，其实是非常脆弱的，问题往往不全是在于谁欺骗了谁，或谁隐瞒了谁，往往也不全是信息不对称或者是任何一方存心想占对方的便宜，现在的问题往往是缔约双方的信息都缺乏，也都欠缺经验，甚至对于欲缔结合同上的根，只有理想，没有实际操作模板，对于欲缔结的合同，只有想象， 都没有很多经验，就算是规划，也只能说是对将来尚未发生的事物想象。缔结合同之后，实际操作的时候，理想不见了、规划失灵了，想象的事情也许根本没有发生，却反而接二连三出现许多新生事物，这些新生事务直接挑战着合同双方当事人的智能。不幸的是，浅碟式的意思合致主义，造就出来的合同和合同上的“经济人”，不过是各自顺着利己思路将本求利罢了，至于合同的根，那个共同目的，此时没有人会把它当一回事，什么远大理想？什么合同目的！总是被忽略的时候多，看来，合同的本质是到了该调整的时候了，合同的内部似乎应有一种机制，与当事人的自由完全分离，“意思合致”其实正意味着个体意思脱离当事人，形成了客观的“共同意志”，所以，合同在相当程度上已是一个客观的实体。正因如此，为了符合合同目的，单方的合同条款变更权遂成为可能 。二、看不见的合同秩序合同其实就是两个部分组成的，一个是看得见的部分，另一个是看不见的部分。合同秩序不光是来自看得见的部分，还有看不见的部分。德国十九世纪末的法学家Bernhard Windscheid曾谓：<WP=6>“你把‘默示的预想’(tacit presupposition)理论从门里扔出去，它还会从窗户再进来。”其意概指行为人所欲追求的合同状态持续存在的假定，虽未被作成合同条款，如相对人已意识到且已根本性影响了行为人的意思，这种情况如果被刻意忽略，从对合同效力的影响上予以排除，它还是会自动跑回来，纠缠着合同的当事人。这是一个非常复杂的问题，由于时间和本身能力的局限，本文打算只从两个部分切入；一是合同主体的相对性；一是合同的弹性。前者打算为合同的拘束力找到一个外延比较容易掌握的理论基础，乃是以合同和共同体的交互比照，对映出合同作为以“共同目的”为基础的客观“意志”。合同本身不无共同体的性质，其拘束力(对当事人的拘束)的外延亦只能以“共同目的”的解释范围以内为限，债权人对债务人的无尽需索只能到此为止，为债务人的牺牲找到边界。同时推得“相互设想原则”与“债权人的债务”两项概念。后者(即合同的弹性)系以相互设想原则与债权人的债务的概念将债务人的合同上“地位”与债权人完全拉齐，同时以“目的失焦”理论描述合同关系上当事人的“意思合致”与“合同目的”发生的“不对焦”现象，提出“对焦”的具体操作规则，并介绍其它立法例或学界对类似问题的解决方式。本文仅是拋砖引玉，为解决等价交换断线的问题，还有很长的路要走。这个问题挥之不去，套句Bernhard Windscheid的话，你把它从门里拋出去，它还是会从窗户再进来。王宝莅 谨识2003年4月26日更多还原

【Abstract】 1．The fool theoryI, the writer, am a worker for practical affairs of law in Taiwan, have been worked on the practical affairs of a lawyer for many years with a major job as an agent to draft contracts and to suit etc. I have got many thoughts and feelings in the experiences of working of years, and I cannot help writing them down. A question has germinated in my mind for years: Does a contract protect a good guy or a wise guy? The gist of the law for contract is to protect a good guy; however, things often come to contrary ends.Modern economic theories suppose that men are "rational persons" and "economic persons", they can be clearly aware of their benefits. However, the truth is, men of kind hearts often become fools jeered at. Contracts of good quality shall not merely provide stipulations to make fools much hurt and thereby become wiser and wiser; only those contracts that provide stipulations able to protect fools are contracts of good quality.The "fool" talked about here actually can be explained broadly, it includes the meaning of an "overly faint-hearted person" that tends to give promise; a society of specialties and sharing out of works involves contracts concerning the fields of many specialties, ordinary people can not understand those contracts such as medical contracts, lawyer contracts and technologic contracts etc., and this results that "promises will be made out of ignorance"; moreover, both two parties may be "foolish" and both make promises. Therefore, under the strong impelling of private interests in the society with fine sharing out of works, every one can be a fool in the time and the space of a contract. Protection for fools thereby is a very imperative thing.Conventional contracts evidently have a radical defect, wherein they are supposed that men are "rational persons" and can effectively handle their own interests. And the contracts are entered into on an overly simply required basis, that is, when the "opposite" opinions of both parties (or all parties) get mutual consent, the contracts are completed, and the content of each contract then is "integrally formed" of the opinions. Here, under the imaging combination which is "rational and mutual opposition inclusive", the weak parties surely are sad defeated losers.We can easily find that, the birth of a contract does not certainly mean that the contract can be completely performed; a baby just born can never stand up for walking, performance of a contract always is a course of growth rather than a goal to get in a shot. By all means, we can try to stipulate for the contract to make it very detailed in advance, and then "perform according thereto"; however, we have found in practicing that, it is absolutely impossible to completely perform according thereto; there must be a lot of unexpected things that are large and small in the course of performing the contract, a creditor of blockhead certainly can make thorough unfortunateness of a debtor. In view of this, to "perform according thereto" is never the sole way for performing, there are evidently some things else in the contract.Each contract has its essential requisite that is a common object all the interested parties desire to<WP=8>make come true; in lack of such an essential requisite, the contract will be very weak actually. The problem is not exactly that someone cheats others, or someone makes others obscured, and it is not exactly that the information is not equitable or that someone tries to take advantage of others; the problem nowadays is often that both two parties making the contract are in lack of information and experiences, and even that they only have ideals on the contract to be made without any typical model in practicing, they only image rather than get many experiences, or even that if they have planned, the plan is only an imagination of an object that not yet happens. While in practicing after entering into the contract, the ideals disappear, the plan is ineffective, the imagined object never happens perhaps; rather, there are many new issues c更多还原