【作者】 彭娟娟；

【导师】 吴春燕；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 被宣告无效或被撤销的合同不发生法律效力,但并不是不发生任何法律后果,只是不发生当事人订立合同时所期望发生的结果,即使得当事人在合同中规定的产生、变更或终止民事权利义务的意图不能得以实现。根据我国《合同法》的相关规定,合同无效后的法律后果,因合同无效时财产的存在状态不同而有所不同：无效合同未被履行,双方也未受有损失的,双方均不承担民事责任；合同无效时已被履行,双方当事人应将因无效合同所取得的财产返还给对方,不能返还或者没有必要返还的,应当折价补偿；对因合同无效而造成的损失,有过错的一方应当向对方进行赔偿,双方都有过错的,各自承担相应责任。本文仅对合同无效后的返还财产法律后果进行分析,对这一法律后果中的若干问题进行了探讨,以求更深层次的理解和厘清司法实践中所遇到的问题并寻求妥当的答案。文章除引言和结语外,正文分为四个部分。第一部分,就合同无效后返还财产请求权的性质问题进行分析。就返还原物的性质来说,因对物权行为无因性的态度不同,各国所持观点并不统一,我国理论界也存在争议。而在原物已被毁损、灭失或原物为依其性质自始既不能返还时(如劳务之债),自没有讨论是物上请求权还是不当得利请求权的必要。本文认为由于合同无效时财产的存在状态会有所不同,因此合同无效后返还财产应区分不同情况适用不同的请求权。第二部分,就履行返还财产的基本规则进行了分析。对因无效合同而取得的财产如何返还,本文首先提出了返还财产应遵循的标准,价额部分认为可借鉴英美法系中关于恢复原状标准的规定,如史尚宽先生所言,“应以回复如未订立契约给付人于解约时所应有之现状为合理。”接着分析了返还财产的范围,就孳息部分,根据我国《物权法》的相关规定,已不区分善意占有还是恶意占有而都肯认权利人对孳息的返还请求权；而对物的折旧,本文认为应作为返还财产时予以考虑的一个要素。最后对返还财产过程中所需要的费用和产生的风险负担问题进行了探讨。第三部分,对折价补偿方式的分析。折价补偿责任是返还财产责任的一种特殊方式,其实质在于不能返还财产或没有必要返还时以金钱形式给予对方补偿。其次折价补偿的性质也不同于损害赔偿责任,折价补偿不适用过错原则。接着分析了折价补偿额的计算标准,本文支持客观说的观点,并进行了举例以对该观点进行更直观的说明。关于折价补偿额的计算时点,除受领人恶意外,以价额偿还义务成立时为准据点。第四部分,分析了不法原因给付时返还财产的问题。不法原因给付不得返还制度在大陆法系和英美法系的许多国家立法中都有体现,以维护社会的公共秩序与善良风俗。然而对这一制度的批评也一直存在,许多虽给付不法但不适宜保留占有的情形被作为例外予以确立下来,由此而提出的“原则加例外”模式却也并不能妥当的解决这一制度下的所有问题。本文对不法原因给付下财产的还与不还这一核心问题进行了分析,释明了每一种原则存在的理由及其作用。接着对不法原因给付制度在我国的运用现状以案例的形式作了介绍,并提出本文的观点。更多还原

【Abstract】 The phenomenon, in the private law practice, occurs frequently that contracts are null and void. Legal consequences similar to that of avoidance of the contract happen when changeable or revocable contract are canceled as well as the termination of the contract.The Article 58 of Contract law, China, prescribes that prosperities should be returned from the contract after it is invalid of withdraw, or given a corresponding compensation while the prosperity cannot be returned or the return is unnecessary. The party at fault shall compensate the other one for losses suffered if both sides are at fault, bear their respective responsibilities.Therefore, consequences follow after contracts turn out to be invalid that the return of property, a discount of compensation and the pay of damages. However, the legislation fails to set the basis of liability to return the property, namely we cannot get a definite criterion that the claim for restitution of property followed by invalid contract derives from the right of claiming (argument A refers to it next), or creditor claims (B instead). We should focus on these problems encountered in the judicial practice and make them through. In this paper, I will do my utmost to make me understood and tackle such tricky problems.The text is divided into four parts apart from the introduction and conclusion.Firstly, I will analyze the problem relative to the basis of the right of claim.Discussion about the nature of the return of property has always existed, furthermore and such two different arguments as A or unjust enrichment claim gradually cooperate to allow the existence of two competing rights. I advise to legalize the right of claiming and determine the nature of return of the property according to the specific facts of the case in judicial practice as to fulfill the legislation’s intention.Secondly, we will swift to topic how to calculate the number of the return of property, In the first, propose the standard we should abide by, that is to return to the state prior to entering into the contract. Then, discuss the scope of the return, yield calculations, whether the need for compensation for the depreciation of property or not, and impacts arouse by changes of the monetary value. Finally, talk about the burden of costs and the risks followed by the returnThirdly, analyze the discount compensation liability, which is a special way for responsibility of the return to compensate the loss with money. We adopt it just when fail to return the property or there is no need.Next, point out that the nature of discount compensation to which the principle of fault fails to apply, differ from compensation for damages. By the way, I prop up the objective view and give some examples.Lastly, have a talk about the thesis the return followed by illegal reasons, which has been proscribed in legislation in many countries of the civil law and common law system to maintain social order and good morals.However, critics of the system always exist that the mode, "principle plus exceptions "fails to solve all the problem under the system. In this paper, analyze the core issues that the return or not followed by payment for illegal reasons; enunciate the reasons for the existence of each principle and role. Then, describe the illegal use of payment systems in china in the form of case as well as putting forward the author’s appointment.更多还原