【作者】 郭平宜；

【导师】 李开国；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 一、本文的框架和主要内容除导言与结语外,本文本体为三部分六章。导言部分简要介绍本文的选题动因、主要研究内容与研究方法。第一章和第二章为第一部分,是对缔约阶段利益保护制度的现实比较考察与历史渊源论述,旨在阐述我国确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的可行性。第三章和第四章为第二部分,通过对我国缔约阶段利益保护现状的分析和对确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的理论基础与基本价值的论述,主要阐述我国确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的必要性与正当性。第五章和第六章为第三部分,通过论述第三人侵害缔约关系的损害赔偿责任的构成要件以及相应的民事责任承担,主要阐述如何在我国具体构建第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度。结语部分是对作者观点的一个梳理与相应的立法建议。第一章是对缔约阶段利益保护制度的现实比较考察,旨在从现实的实证角度,阐述在我国构建第三人侵害缔约关系民事责任制度的可行性,内容上分为二节。第一节的主要内容为分析现代英美法系国家对缔约阶段的信赖利益受损的救济制度。现代英美法系对缔约阶段信赖利益的保护分为两种情形,一种情形是缔约一方损害了另一方在缔约阶段中的信赖利益,对此的救济主要以合同法的相关理论为基础;另一种情形是第三人干扰预期合同关系,损害了缔约人的信赖利益,对此的救济主要是以侵权法的相关理论为基础。因此,笔者在本节简要介绍第三人干扰预期合同关系在当代英美法系中的基本救济制度、第三人干扰预期合同关系的典型加害行为以及相关的典型判例。第二节的主要内容为分析大陆法系传统的国家或地区可调整第三人侵害缔约关系的相关法律制度。在德国与台湾地区的民法典虽然没有通过专门的条款来构建第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度,但通过对相关侵权责任制度的一般条款进行解释,可以对第三人侵害缔约关系的情形进行调整,尽管这在适用起来不如类型化后的独立条款那么明确与方便。如《德国民法典》第826条规定,以违反善良风俗的方式故意对他人施加损害的人,对他人负有损害赔偿义务。台湾地区民法第184条第1项之后段则规定,故意以背于善良风俗之方法,加损害于他人者,亦同(负损害赔偿责任)。也就是说,如果第三人知道他人之间正在进行缔约关系,仍故意采取违背善良风俗的方式,致使缔约关系不正常的终止或中断,给缔约人的信赖利益造成损失的,第三人应对受害缔约人承担侵权民事责任。类似于德国或台湾地区的立法规定有奥地利、土耳其、瑞典、荷兰与希腊等大陆法系国家。第二章概要介绍了第三人侵害缔约关系之民事责任制度的相关历史渊源,简要回顾第三人干扰合同预期关系相关制度在英美法中的历史演进情况,旨在从历史实证角度,间接阐述在我国构建第三人侵害缔约关系民事责任制度的可行性。人们正常的交易活动,直观上讲,体现为一种过程,始于当事人缔结合同,终于合同生效后当事人完全诚信履行合同义务。在合同生效之前的缔约过程,涉及两个阶段,第一个阶段是要约生效之前的磋商活动阶段,第二个阶段是要约生效后到合同生效前这一磋商阶段。美国《第二次侵权法重述》中的“预期合同关系”(prospective contract or prospective contractingrelations not yet reduced to contract)也仅指上述的第二个阶段,即从要约生效后到承诺生效前这一磋商阶段,与大陆法系中缔约阶段的缔约关系基本相当。在英美法系国家,第三人干扰预期合同关系后的民事救济问题,是与第三人干扰合同有效成立后的合同关系相互交织在一起发展演进的。把第三人干扰合同关系作为一种侵权来处理,在英美国家中有较长的历史,大致可以分为三个发展演进阶段。1850年以前为第一阶段,包括预期合同关系在内合同关系在该阶段已经受到法律的保护,不受第三人引诱、欺诈或诽谤之类不当加害行为的侵害。但那时该方面的诉讼非常零碎,缺乏统一性,每一类需要受到法律保护的合同关系都需要予以特别界定,诉讼的主要目的在于制止被告的违法行为。1850年至1890年之间大致为第二阶段。受新兴的“侵权”与“合同”等法学概念的影响,统一的第三人干扰合同关系之侵权规则出现了,标志性判例莱姆里诉金(Lumley v.Gye)一案。到19世纪的后期,英美法学界已经把合同关系作为财产的观点扩展至非雇佣类合同关系和正在订立中的预期合同关系。1890年之后为第三阶段,英美法庭承认,缔约人的合同财产关系应当受到法律的保护,但当与实施加害行为的第三人在市场中的竞争权利发生冲突时,应通过利益平衡的方式,协调平衡处理各方的冲突利益。在当代西方英美法系国家的相关侵权理论中,已经明确规定了第三人干扰合同关系的法律救济制度,并以专门的条文承认了第三人干扰预期合同关系的民事责任制度,这其中以美国最为明确,体现于美国《第二次侵权法重述》第766条的ABC三段条文之中。第三章主要是对我国缔约阶段利益保护的现状分析,阐述在我国确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的必要性。本章的第一节简要论述了我国保护缔约阶段利益的相关制度。在缔约阶段,缔约人的合法权益包括缔约人在缔约过程中的信赖利益以及缔约人固有的人身利益与财产利益,相应的救济制度为现行的缔约过失责任制度和侵权行为法。由于一般侵权行为法主要是保护缔约人在缔约阶段之人身和财产等绝对权,而缔约过失责任制度之责任承担者又具有相对性,即具有过错的缔约当事人,对缔约以外之第三人基本不涉及,在因第三人的加害行为造成缔约人的信赖利益损失时,无法给受害缔约人提供法律救济。所以,我国当前的法律制度在缔约阶段当事人的信赖利益保护方面留下了法律调整的空白点。本章的第二节主要是阐述第三人侵害缔约关系与相关民事责任制度的关系,探讨在确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度之外,是否可以通过学界认可之第三人侵害债权制度或现有的反不正当竞争法之相关规定,来调整第三人侵害缔约关系的法律救济问题。由于缔约当事人在缔约这一阶段,缔约当事人之间尚没有形成正式有效的合同关系,缔约当事人之间尚未最终形成约定的债权债务关系,所以第三人侵害债权的民事责任制度对其并无适用之余地。同时,虽然第三人侵害缔约关系的行为大部分属于扰乱市场秩序的不正当竞争行为,但是还有一部分侵害行为并不属于不正当竞争行为范畴,它可能就是民事主体对缔约关系的嫉妒、不满或仇视,加害行为的主体并不参与竞争,仅仅就是以达到让他人的缔约关系破裂为目的,对这一部分侵害行为,以反不正当竞争法进行调整并不恰当。第三人加害缔约关系的行为,实质上属于平等主体之间的一种民事侵权行为,对信赖利益受损缔约人而言,其关注之重点在于相关的民事救济措施能否填补自己所遭受的损害,无疑侵权责任制度最能满足此要求。而且,从国外立法例来看,大陆法系国家的德国虽然制定了较为详细的反不正当竞争法,但受害缔约人仍可援引《德国民法典》第826条关于侵权行为的规定,救济缔约关系所体现的信赖利益。在美国,反不正当竞争法同样非常发达,但同样在《第二次侵权法重述》中详细阐述了第三人干扰预期合同关系的民事责任救济制度,并在实践中产生了大量第三人干扰预期合同关系的侵权民事判例。第四章主要通过论述第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的理论基础与价值目标,阐述在我国确立第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的正当性。构建第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度具有坚实的理论依据,它是诚实信用原则的必然要求,与合法权益应受法律保护的原则也相一致。第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度不但具有坚实的理论依据,而且在我国确立该制度具有保障合同自由、维护交易安全、降低交易成本与提高经济效率等法律价值,有助于从交易源头保护缔约关系,对全面周密保护缔约当事人在缔约阶段之合法权益具有重大的现实意义。第五章主要阐述第三人加害缔约关系的侵权损害赔偿责任的之构成要件。基于缔约关系对第三人不具有社会典型公示性之特点,平衡缔约人的信赖利益保护与第三人的行为自由,在参考美国《第二次侵权法重述》的相关规定和大陆法系民法学者对一般法益的侵权构成要件研究之基础上,笔者认为第三人侵害缔约关系的侵权损害赔偿责任应具备以下四个积极构成要件和消极要件,即积极要件包括以下四个方面:第一,第三人具有加害缔约关系的故意;第二,第三人对缔约关系实施了加害的违法行为;第三,缔约人的信赖利益因第三人的加害行为遭受损害;第四,第三人的加害行为与缔约人信赖利益遭受损害之间有因果关系。在消极要件方面,第三人如具有以下一般与特殊的免责事由,即依法执行职务、正当防卫、紧急避险和受害缔约人同意等一般抗辩事由,以及正当竞争、履行正当职责和忠告等特殊抗辩事由,则可免除或减轻该第三人的民事责任。第六章主要是论述第三人侵害缔约关系后的民事责任承担。法律的基本原理是“有权利就有救济,有损害就有赔偿”。只要第三人的故意加害行为致使缔约人的缔约关系不正常的中断或终止,给缔约人的信赖利益造成了损失,如果没有免责事由,第三人就应承担相应的侵权民事责任。从民事责任承担方式而言,由于第三人侵害缔约关系往往是通过对缔约人的人身或财产的侵害而发生,因此,加害人的民事责任承担方式应分为对财产或人身的直接受害人与缔约关系遭破坏的信赖利益受害人两个层面进行分析。一般而言,加害人对财产或人身的直接受害人在财产责任方面就可能承担排除妨害、停止侵害、恢复原状、返还财产以及进行民事赔偿等责任,在非财产责任方面,加害人则可能承担赔礼道歉、消除影响等民事责任,而加害人对缔约关系遭破坏的信赖利益受害人最适宜承担的责任形式则仅可能表现为排除妨害、停止侵害与赔偿损失。就赔偿损失而言,基于民法的平等原则,侵权行为法上的损害赔偿原则一般是填平原则,即损失多少赔偿多少,因此,第三人也应对信赖利益受损的缔约人承担补偿性的损害赔偿责任。就具体民事赔偿范围而言,受害缔约人的信赖利益损失包括直接损失和间接损失,但间接损失应从严把握。就第三人侵害缔约关系之民事责任的承担主体而言,由于第三人侵害缔约关系行为的多样性,其责任承担的主体也表现出复杂性,第一种情况是第三人单独承担侵权民事责任,第二种情况是第三人与一方缔约人对信赖利益受损之相对缔约人承担不真正连带责任,第三种情况是第三人与恶意串通的一方缔约人因共同侵害相对缔约人的信赖利益而承担连带责任。就第三人侵害缔约关系的相关诉讼时效期间设置而言,以效率为主与兼顾私权神圣为指导,在借鉴我国已有研究成果和美国侵权法中第三人干扰预期合同关系的所产生的损害赔偿请求权规定的诉讼期间制度基础上,笔者建议因第三人侵害缔约关系的所产生的损害赔偿请求权设定3年以上的诉讼时效期间相对较为合适。二、本文的创新点及不足之处(一)本文的创新点是否创新,是比较而言。在笔者撰写本文时,国内仅有一篇于2005年7月发表互联网上字数在1万字左右相关论题的文章,相较于此研究状况,笔者认为本文创新之处大致体现在以下几个方面:第一,笔者在本文的阐述中,大量使用了英美国家的第一手原文资料,尤其是英美法系国家的相关学术论文、判例、法律法规条文及其相关阐述说明的原文资料,引用材料新颖。第二,笔者在本文的阐述中,通过对缔约阶段的利益保护制度进行比较考察,发现我国法律对第三人侵害缔约关系调整存在空白点,然后对该制度在国外的产生与发展的社会经济背景、国外的当前状况、该制度存在的理论基础与价值目标,以及如何具体构建该制度等方面,循序渐进,系统完整的对该命题进行了论述。第三,笔者在本文中根据论述的需要,采用了国内外横向比较研究、历史研究以及案例分析等多种研究方法,并综合运用了法史学、法哲学及相关部门法学等多学科的知识,力求说理充分论述透彻。第四,在系统阐述之后,笔者就第三人加害缔约关系的侵权构成要件、相应民事责任承担以及相关的诉讼时效期间等提出了自己的观点,并认为应该在我国侵权责任制度中,以明确的条文就第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度作出规定。(二)不足之处在论文的写作过程之中,笔者虽然竭尽全力,但由于资料与能力方面的限制,最后定稿之论文还是存在着诸多缺陷:第一,本文是从一个大陆法系国家的立场来研究第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度,而目前大陆法系国家或地区中尚无一国或一地区以明确的专门条文规定该制度。虽然英美国家有相关的判例,并且在美国《第二次侵权法重述》中对此类侵权的情形也有明确的条文规定和相关阐述,但毕竟两大法系存在很多差别,尤其是程序法方面的差别对实体法的具体制度构造的影响不可忽视。对此,笔者由于知识与掌握的资料等原因,基本上没有进行论述,无疑是一大缺陷,有待以后予以完善。第二,由于目前我国对该制度的研究极少,仅有零星片段只言的论述,司法实务中也尚无实际判例,缺乏相关经验材料,所以笔者很难对第三人侵害缔约关系的民事责任制度的具体操作方法做精细的阐述,更加细致的分析与论证只有等待在今后的司法实践中的试错及相关经验的积累后方能予以开展。第三,在本文的论述过程中,由于使用了大量的外文资料,对外文资料的信达雅翻译虽然是笔者的梦想,但翻译不准确之处在所难免。在此,笔者就引用外文资料翻译表述不准确之处,深表歉意,期待以后修改完善。上述三点仅是笔者当前认为比较大的遗憾之处,文章肯定还有多处笔者尚未发现的缺陷,有待今后方家批评指正或自己发现之后予以修改完善。更多还原

【Abstract】 Ⅰ.The framework and primary content of the articleApart from preface and conclusion,the thesis consists of six chapters.Preface is a brief introduction of the causes to choose the topic,the main contents of text and the main research methods used.Part one,consisting of chapter one and chapter two, compares different systems protecting contracting-stage interest and dissertates these systems’ historical evolution in order to discuss the feasibility of establishing the system regarding the civil liability of a third party’s infringement on prospective contractual relations.Part two, consisting of chapter three and chapter four,dissertates the necessity and Justification of establishing the system regarding the civil liability of a third party’s infringement on contractual relations by analyzing the present status of contractual-benefit protection in China and analyzing the theory foundation and basic value of establishing the aforesaid civil system. Part three,consisting of chapter five and chapter six,mainly dissertates in detail how we shall establish such kind of civil system by elaborating on the constitutive elements of a third party’s infringement on others’ contractual relations and corresponding liability.The closing part of the thesis summarizes and restates the author’s opinion.Chapter one,consisting of two sections,compares different law systems that protect a contractor’s interest at the contracting stage.Section one mainly elaborates on how Anglo-American law countries relieve the reliance interest at the contracting stage.In Anglo-American law system,there are two situations of protecting such reliance interest:One situation is that one party of the contract hurt the other party’s reliance interest.Relief of this is mainly based on contract law related theory.The other situation is that the reliance interest of a contractor is infringed by a third person.Relief of this is mainly based on tort law related theory and regulation.In this section the author will mainly discuss the relief of a third party’s infringement of reliance interest in contemporary Anglo-Saxon law system,typical tortious act and corresponding typical case.Section two mainly elaborates on Continental Law System’s relief of a third party’s infringing contractual relation.Countries and regions of Continental Law System take different attitudes toward relief of the reliance interest when a third person infringes a contractual relation and leads to a failure to establish the contractual relationship.In France,though the litigation system on a third party’s infringement of contractual relation and the general principle that contract being infrangible has been established in the case Borney & Desprez V.Dutrieu & Isola Frere,it is regretful that France tort law just protects contracts that have been in existence.This means that contract-to-be, null contract,revocable contract,performed contract,lawfully terminated contract,LOI and agreement under discussion are all not under protection of France tort law,even when they are infringed by a third person.In Germany and Taiwan China,however,though we can not find specific article of corresponding law system on a third party’s infringement of contractual relationship in the Civil Code,we can find some general articles regulating this. For example,article 826 of Germany Civil Code stipulates that people who infringe others in the way violating bonis mores shall indemnify.Civil Code of Taiwan has similar regulation in article 184-1.That is to say,if a person infringes other people’s contractual relation on purpose in a way violating bonis mores,and thus terminates or halts the contractual relation, this infringing person shall bear corresponding civil liability hereof.Chapter two is a brief review of the historical evolution of a third party’s infringement on contractual relations.This chapter is a brief review of the historical evolution of a third party’s infringement on contractual relations in common law and its status quo in contemporary Anglo-American society.Our country has yet to establish the civil obligation system on infringement of prospective contractual relations and other countries and regions of continental law mainly offer legal relief in terms of general legal interest,whereas the common law system has already stipulated the civil obligation system of infringement on prospective contractual relations by a third person,therefore this chapter mainly elaborates on the historical evolution of corresponding systems and legal cases in Anglo-American countries.The "prospective contractual relations" in common law The Restatement(Second) of Torts are basically equivalent to the contractual relations at the contracting stage in continental law system.In those countries of Anglo-American law system,the civil relief measures to deal with a third party’s infringement on prospective contractual relations have developed along with a third party’s infringement on the credit relations upon the valid establishment of the contract,Treating a third party’s infringement on contractual relations as tort has a relatively long history,which can be roughly divided into three evolutionary stages. Time before 1850 is the first stage,in which the contractual relationship has been protected by law and should not be infringed by such illegal acts as luring,fraud or slander.But at that time the litigation in this respect was rather unsystematic and each type of contractual relations in need of legal protection had to be particularly defined,moreover,the main purpose of litigation is to stop the defendant’s illegal acts.Roughly speaking,time between 1850 and 1890 is the second stage.Along with those new legal conceptions such as "infringement" and "contract",a unified infringement rule on a third party’s infringement on contractual relations emerged.During this stage,contractual relationship was gradually viewed as a type of "property" which deserved the protection of the law and should not be infringed by various illegal acts with Lumley v.Gye as a symbol case.It was not until the late 19th century that the common law circle extended the conception of contractual relations as property to non-employment contractual relations and prospective contractual relations.Time after the year of 1890 is the third stage,in which the common law court admitted that the contractual property relations between the contractors should be protected by the law and be offered corresponding legal relief measures when infringed by a third person.However,in some cases,when the contractual relations are against the inflictor’s right of participating in the market competition,a compromise should be made to balance all parties’ conflicting interests by means of equilibrium.The relevant laws of contemporary common law countries has already embodied the legal relief system of a third party’s infringement on contractual relations and stipulated the civil liability system on a third party’s infringement on prospective contractual relations.Among these countries the United States has the most definite stipulation.with Section A B and C of the 766th clause in American Restatement(second) of Torts clearly states.Chapter three analyzes the present situation of China on the protection of the interest at contracting stage.Section of this chapter briefly elaborates on related law system.At the contracting stage,a contractor’s interest includes reliance interest,personal interest and property interest.The corresponding relief law system is the present law system on contracting negligence liability and the Tort Law.However,the Tort Law protects such absolute right as personal right and property right at the contracting stage,but the contracting negligence liability is relative liability not binding a third person other than the contractors. So,according to present Chinese law,we can not relieve the infringed party when a third party infringes a contractual relation leading to a hurt of reliance interest.Thus,China present law system has a blank to be filled out regarding relief of a party’s reliance interest at the contracting stage.Section two of this chapter mainly elaborates on the relationship between a third party’s infringing contract and related civil system.This section also discusses whether it is possible to relief infringed contractual relation by means of scholars-recognized law system on this and the present anti-unfair competition law.At the contracting stage,the contract has yet to be in existence,and the contract relationship has yet to be in existence.So,civil law system regarding a third party’s infringement on contract can not be applied.At the same time, though most of the tortious acts of a third person are improper competitive act,and thus disturbs market order,some of such tortious acts are not improper competitive acts,and are just some acts aroused by envy or hostile towards the contractual relation.In such case,the infringing person just hopes the contract to break,because he/she does not take part in the competition.In this case,anti-improper competition law shall not be applied.A third party’s tortious act is,in nature,a tortious act between equal civil parties.The most important thing that the reliance interest hurt party care is the relief method,because he need to be indemnified.Furthermore,from the point of abroad lawmaking,though Germany has made detailed anti-improper competition law,a infringed party can also cite Article 826 of the Germany Civil Code to protect and relieve his own reliance interest.Anti-improper competition law is also very developed.But,detailed elaboration on relief of prospective contract infringed by a third person is made in The Restatement(Second) of Torts,and a lot of leading case arose in practice.So,there is no obstacle taking this into the regulation of civil law.Chapter four mainly elaborates the theoretical basis and the value of the civil law system regarding a third party’s infringement on contract,and lead to the conclusion that it is justified to establish such a civil law system in China.To establish such a civil law system is the requirement of bona fide principle,and is consistent with the need of protecting reliance interest.Such a law system is also consistent with the trend that the scope of tort law is expanding.The civil law system regarding a third party’s infringement on contract has stable theoretical basis,and may safeguard contracting freedom,safeguard dealling security,lower dealling cost,improve efficiency,and protect contractual relation from the headstream.So,such a civil law system is significant in giving the contracting parties all-round protection regarding their legal interest at the contracting stage.Chapter five elaborates on the constitutive elements of a third party’s infringement on others’ contractual relations.In finding out the constitutive elements of this,the author gives a full consideration of the fact that contractual relation is not public to other people,the fact that we must balance the freedom of a third party’s act and a contractor’s reliance interest,and the fact that we must balance the interest of an individual and the interest of the society.The author also refers to China’s mainland’s scholastic study,American Restatement(Second) of Torts and Continental Law scholastic study and draws the conclusion that the constitutive elements of a third party’s infringement on others’ contractual relations should be:positive one and negative one.The positive one has four aspects:1.The third person intentionally infringes others’ contractual relations;2.The third person has conducted harmful illegal act upon others’ contractual relations;3.The third party’s infringing act does damage to others’ contractual relations;4.A cause-effect relationship exists between the third party’s infringement and the damage of others’ contractual relations.The negative aspect means that if the infringement making person can provide the following general defensive reasons:not on purpose,in due execution of his/her duty,proper self-defense,right of necessity,with the victim’s consent,and the following special defensive reasons:duely executed his/her duty and having given the infringed parties duely advise,he/she can be exempted from or be lightened of civil liability.Chapter six mainly elaborates on the civil liability that shall be borne when a third person infringes a contractual relation."Where there is right,there is relief" and "where there is damage,there is indemnification" are basic legal principles.So long as a contractual relation is broken by a third party’s intent tortious act and thus lead to reliance interest damage,the third person shall bear civil liability hereof unless he/she has defensive reasons. Regarding the mode of bearing liability,the third person shall eliminate nuisances,stop infringing,resume the original state,return the property,and indemnify the damages.The infringement making person may also be compelled to apologize and eliminate the sideeffect of his/her act.On damage indemnification,the infringement making third person just need to indemnify the actual loss of the infringed person,because civil law has the principle of equality.The reliance interest to be indemnified includes direct loss and indirect loss. Because the situation of a third party’s infringement on contractual relation is diversified,the fact of who shall bear the civil liability is also diversified.Firstly,it may be the infringing third person alone to bear the liability;secondly,it may be the infringing third person together with one of the contract parties to bear an unreal joint liability;thirdly,it may be the infringing third person together with one of the contract parties to bear joint liability if they conspire maliciously.As to the action limitation of the damage indemnification for the infringement of contractual relations by a third person,we should mainly consider efficiency without ignoring the holiness of personal rights.Using Chinese research fruits and the U.S tort law as reference,the author proposes that the comparatively proper action limitation on the claims against a third party’s infringing contractual relation should be no less than 3 years.ⅡThe innovations of the article and its insuffienciesA.The innovations of the articleOnly by comparison can we judge whether there are innovations or not.When the author was writing this thesis,there is just one article of about 10 thousand words published on the Internet in July of 2005.Compared with that article,this thesis has the following innovations:First,in the elaboration,the author cited a lot of first-hand British and American reference material,especially related thesis,leading case,law articles with expound of Anglo-Saxon Law system.The citation of the materials is original.Second,the author found out the blank point of law by comparing the law systems regarding contractual interest protection.Then the author,in proper sequence,gives a systematical and all-round elaboration on the social economy background,the present status, the theoretical basis,the value and the establishing details of the system regarding a third party’s infringement on contractual relation.Third,for the purpose of elaboration,the author makes use of various study method, such as horizontal comparison,material study,history study,case study,etc.The author also applies knowledge of legal history,legal philosophy and knowledge of other subject to achieve a sufficient and full elaboration.Fourth,after systematic elaboration,the author draws the conclusion that China shall stipulate in Tort Law the civil liability of a third party’s infringing a contractual relation.The author also put forward his own opinion on the four constitutive elements,the defensive causes,the civil liability and the action limitation of a third party’s infringement on contractual relation.B.The insuffiencies of the articleWith the confines of material and the author’s capability,the thesis has some defects, though the author spares no effort. First,this thesis tries,from the standpoint of a Continental Law country,to research on the civil liability system regarding a third party’s infringing a contractual relation.But up to now,no Continental Law country or region has stipulated this.Though Anglo-America countries have related regulation and American Restatement(second) of Torts has related elaboration on this kind of tort,the two law systems are of huge difference.Especially,we should not ignore the influence on substantive law caused by the difference of procedural law. Confined by the materials in hand,the author does not deal with this,and will deal with it in the future.Second,because of the fact that little research on this subject has been carried out in China,the fact that no leading case can be found in judicial practice,and the fact that we can not find out experience material in China,the author finds it hard to make a detailed and all-round elaboration on the civil liability system on a third party’s infringing a contractual relation.Thus,more detailed analysis and elaboration have to be made in the future after we have enough judicial practice and try-and-err to gain enough experience.Third,the author applied a lot of foreign material to elaborate.Though being faithful, expressive and elegant is the author’s goal in translation,flaws and defects may not be avoided.The author apologizes for the inexact translation and expression if any.The above-mentioned defects are just those can be found by the author at present.There may be some potential defects to be corrected and amended after being pointed out by experts, or being found out by the author himself.更多还原