【作者】 仲伟珩；

【导师】 米健；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 某有限责任公司股东想出售其在该公司的股权,委托某会计师事务所对该公司经营状况出具财务鉴定报告,而购买人基于信赖此财务鉴定报告的正确性同出卖人签订股权转让合同,购买了此股权。后来此财务鉴定报告被证明是错误的,该股权事实上的价值要低于出售价。在这种情况下,会计师对其委托人的责任属于瑕疵给付的责任,不属于我们的研究范围。而是否会计师要对购买人(委托人之外的第三人)承担损害赔偿责任则是本研究的主题。所以,本研究的范围首先是专家对第三人所造成的财产损害的问题,即专家对其委托人之外的第三人的责任。对于此第三人的责任,在英国法是通过过失的侵权形式予以解决,而在德国法是通过扩充合同的责任保护范围来予以解决。而通过研究我认为,在我国应该通过侵权法路径来解决专家的第三人责任问题。所以,最终的结论考察,是需要在中国现有的法律框架下研究专家第三人责任的侵权的构成要件。本研究的另一方面的限制是将本研究定位在财产损失的领域,专家的第三人责任问题原则上属于民法中纯粹经济损失的责任问题。到目前为止,我国关于专家第三人责任问题的研究只能说是刚刚开始。尽管本研究最终的结论证明了我国专家第三人责任问题恰恰需要并且只能通过侵权法来予以解决,但我国所涉及到的关于专家第三人责任的侵权行为路径的理论论证还很不充分。因此,本研究的主要考察路径是对这种侵权行为构成路径进行理论上的论证。本研究选取了英国法和德国法的解决路径进行探究。在这两个国家,专家第三人责任问题目前都受到高度重视,争论非常激烈。而且尽管两个国家的解决路径是完全不同的,但是两个国家的学者都曾尝试借鉴对方的解决路径。所以,本研究通过分析这两个国家关于专家第三人责任解决路径的共同点、区别和优缺点,并抽象出来对我国能有所帮助的责任构成要件,进一步对我国的立法和司法提供一些可能的建议。这样的法律比较能够找到我们所研究问题的弱点和需要解决问题的关键点。所以在本研究中,事实上是对三个法律制度:中国法、英国法和德国法解决问题的路径进行微观上的比较。这种限定范围的彼此比较也许会提供对某个甚至所有国家都有用的启示或者立法模式。而对这些法律制度和法律解决路径进行历史层面的发掘,也许能够对这些制度的历史上的局限有所把握。事实上,一个或者多个甚至整个一套法律制度的体系都是具有历史层面的关联性的,而只有寻求这个制度的历史关联,才能使这个制度更好地发挥作用。在历史关联的基础上必须分析专家的三人责任制度在当前存在的现实社会条件。在这种考察的基础上,通过分析两个国家解决相同问题的不同解决路径,能够找到对这个问题的共同处理方式。在比较分析的基础上能够抽象出来专家第三人责任的共同要素。这种共同的要素显然对于在中国解决专家第三人责任的问题和进行专家第三人责任的制度设计都肯定是值得借鉴的。因此,根据这样的结论来考察中国的专家第三人责任存在的问题和解决的路径,就能够发现中国的专家第三人责任在很多方面的解决方式都不是令人满意的。所以,本研究不仅仅在现有中国法的框架下,从解释论的角度对司法实践中解决专家第三人责任问题提供一些解决建议;而且从立法论上给未来的专家第三人责任的立法提供一些建议。基于上面的考察路径,本研究首先要对专家第三人责任的一般原理进行介绍。而这首先包括专家第三人责任在我国的侵权法上的定位。而将专家第三人责任定位在侵权法解决路径之下还需要介绍专家第三人责任的侵权构成要件。同时,作为一个独立的法律制度,专家第三人责任必然具有独立于其它法律制度的功能原理、操作机制和制度特点。因此,对这些问题的介绍构成本研究的第一章“专家第三人责任的一般原理”。在我国的理论研究中,相当多的学者在研究专家责任中都提及到了英国的专家责任、德国的专家责任。但是这些对英国法和德国法的描述是否就是对这两个法律制度现状的描述,需要结合这两个国家专家责任制度的发展史予以考察,否则所采纳的论据存在错误的可能是明显的。因此,本研究试图尽可能详细地阐述这两个国家专家第三人的责任的法律制度及在这两个国家的发展轨迹。这主要是本研究的第二章“英国法上的专家第三人责任”和第三章“德国法上的专家第三人责任”。在德国法中,对专家第三人责任,除了基于判决所发展出来的附保护第三人作用的合同的解决路径之外,在德国法学界还对此问题进行了广泛的讨论,并且在文献中出现了不同的有力的观点。而在德国债法现代化法之后,专家第三人责任的解决路径变得更加扑朔迷离。我国的法律体系同德国的法律体系具有千丝万缕的联系,因此,对德国法学理论中所主张的观点进行分析,对我国亦具有重大的启示意义。所以,德国法学理论关于专家第三人责任的讨论也是本研究的一个部分。这主要是本研究的第四章“德国法学理论中解决专家第三人责任的不同观点”专家第三人责任这种责任类型虽然具有其历史上的发展脉络可寻,但是作为一种法律制度上的存在,只是近些年来才出现的。而专家第三人责任制度之所以出现,显然是同当前的社会历史条件相联系的。同时,解决这样的一种责任必然同现代社会国家的法律政策相关联。因此,要想在我国考察专家第三人责任,则必须考察专家第三人责任的历史发展、产生的现实社会条件。只有这样,才能够为我国的法学实践提供好的指导意见并为立法提供科学的指导。本研究第五章“专家第三人责任发展的历史考察和现实社会条件”进行此方面的研究。比较法上考察的目的在于给我国的专家第三人责任的实践和立法提供指导。因此,只有清楚地把握专家第三人责任在我国法律实践和法学理论中的现状,比较法上考察所得出来的结论对我国的指导才能有的放矢。因此,第六章“专家第三人责任在中国的考察”对我国的法律实践和法学理论研究中的专家第三人责任进行分析和一些归纳。通过上面的考察,我们将揭示,中国的专家第三人责任的法律实践和法学理论上的解决路径在很多方面都存在问题。这些问题的症结主要在于对专家第三人责任的理解所存在的偏差和错误。因此,一方面要对中国的专家第三人责任从立法论上设计合适的规则,另一方面也要在解释论上通过提供合适的解释标准来在现有的中国法框架下合理地解决专家第三人责任的问题。这种解释论上的解决路径和立法论上的建构也是本研究项目的最终落脚点,成为本研究的结论。这主要是第七章“中国专家第三人责任制度设计”的内容。更多还原

【Abstract】 A wrong audit can cause damages to shareholders in secondary markets or to buyers of firms or shares in primary markets. This happens especially if outside investors base their decision on the audit and buy overpriced company shares. This type liability of audits for the outside investors is one of the Third Party Liabilities of Experts.The main topic of this paper firstly is restricted on the Liability of Experts to the third Party outside the Liability in the Contract. That is to say, whether should the Expert have the liability to the Parties/Party outsides the contract-Partner? Third Party Liability of Experts is liability for pure economic loss. The main point of this paper is to give normative guidelines for the problem of whether or not the victim outside the contract should be compensated for such losses. It proposes liability for disloyal and negligent behavior if a wrong Expertise caused damages which are caused in a transaction-project and if the third party has reliance on the Expertise that was made by the expert.The legal forms of Third Party Liability of experts in general differ widely across countries. Under tort law most Legal Systems restrict or even exclude liability for pure financial loss. In contract law pure economic losses are generally compensated in case of simple negligence. In some legal orders the plaintiff can base his claim either of Germany and Britain. And then through the legal practice-comparing of these two countries, give some criterions of the Institution of“Third Party Liability of Experts”.In Comparison to the limited scope of German Tort Law (Deliktsrecht), German contract law has a broad scope of protecting rights and interests, which covers case groups for“Third Party Liability of Experts”, which in Britain in contrast are treated under tort law, because Britain contract law is comparatively narrow. My main concern is however not only the legal form of these two countries, but also a proposal of the key criterions of two liability rules, which can do some benefit to Chinese legal construction for this Institution.But in Germany there are also many legal theories arguing the other ways outsides the contract and Tort. These theories are so positive or helpful that we should do some researches on these topics, which could give some tips to this topic.If we want to drop a more scientific solution to this institution, we should also explain the third party liability from the historic sphere. By researching on the historic evolvement of the“Third Party Liability of Experts”we could find, the institution of“Third Party Liability of Experts”is not only a new but also an old topic. But why has this constitution in these years been going into our eyesight? The idea, social, economic, political situations are all contributing to this development, what we should pay more attentions to.After the comparison of the two legal Systems, I can say, these rules can in principle be embedded in contract law, culpa in Contrahendo, tort law, Professional Liability (Berufshaftung) or altogether. But as far as the Chinese legal Construction is concerned, my opinion is that, china should reject the way of contract of contract, culpa in Contrahendo, Professional Liability, and adopt the way of Tort Law.The first chapter of this research should give some basis-Principles of the institution for“Third Party Liability of Experts. What can a man be an Expert? What is Expert Liability? What is“Third Party Liability of Experts”? What is the fundamental way in solving the“Third Party Liability of Experts”? How should man construct the basic Constructions of the Liability in the Tort Law? What are the Functions and the Characters of this Institution?The following three Chapters concern about the legal Comparision. In order to do that, I firstly explain how Britain solve this problem in tort law, what is to say, mostly through the way of Negligence of Torts(Chapter 2.). Secondly I concerntrate myself on the German Law, which through the legal form of a contract with protective consequences for third parties (Vertrag mit Schutzwirkung für Dritte) solves this problem in the scope of the Contract(Chapter 3.). But in Germany the reason in adopting the legal form of a contract with protective consequences for third parties is that, the protect scope of Germany Tort Law (Deliktsrecht) is too narrow to give the remedy for the third party’s compensation. So in Germany legal theory there are many other opionions or theories for the way searching for the Remdies-Way. Chapter 4 is to give some eyesight to the other German Theories for this institution, including Obligations in the tractions (Verkehrspflichten) in Tort Law, Professional Liability, Reliance in Culpa in Contrahendo, etc.Though the Third Party Liability of Experts can be traced back to the Mensor’s Liability in Roman Law and it was also gained the attentions of the usus modernus and the Legislation in A.D.19. Century and the legislators of BGB in Germany had also discussed it a lot, the institution of the Third Party Liability of Experts is only be constructed for about this 30 years. So the historic research should be paid attention to. But most importantly, in order to give the concrete explainations of this institution, should we research today’s situation, including the economic, social, political, idea changes, which could explain the Institution of the Third Party Liability of Experts: from development to mature. Chapter 5. focuses on these problems.If the conclusions of the Comparative Law could be fluently incorperated into one country’s legal system, the real pracise of the country’s legal practices and legal orders must first be researched, which then the conclusions may be helpful for this country. The same principles is suitable to china’s Legal Contruction. So chapter 6. concertrates on the Explaining and research of China’s legal practices and legal orders of this institution. After these works can I drop the conclusion for the chinese Legal Contruction of Third Party Liability of Experts. China should solve this problem in Tort Law.The last chapter draws from the literature on pure financial losses and from the literature on precise and vague negligence norms as well as from the literature on the tort contract boundary. The article does however not discuss the problem of joint and several liability and the strategic problems involved. The focus is exclusively on the question, under which conditions the victim should be highly protected by contract law or get a lower level of protection under tort law. So the duty of care, the Project, the Reliance, the Fault, the Profession, the Expertise, the causation are all the key criterions to the Tort Elements in contructing the Third Party Liability of experts in Tort Law. These problems have been extensively dealt with her through the Compare and are solved here completely. Then chapter 7 is also the conclusion for the whole paper, which I give a legal Instruction to china’s legislation on writing the institution of the Third Party Liability of Experts.更多还原