缔约过失责任研究

【作者】 贺振华；

【导师】 肖国兴；

【作者基本信息】 郑州大学 ， 法律， 2002， 硕士

【摘要】 随着我国改革开放的不断深入，交易活动出现了更深、更广、更频繁的趋势。在我国司法实践中，因缔约过失产生的合同纠纷随之日益增加，当事人在缔约阶段的行为亟需法律调整。而我国《合同法》尽管已确立了缔约过失责任制度，但缺乏可操作性。笔者在本文中采取制度分析、实证分析、比较分析等方法，对缔约过失责任的有关问题进行了研究、探讨，以期为建立我国可操作的缔约过失责任提供制度选择。 一、缔约过失责任的基本理念。首先，比较分析了缔约过失责任概念的五种观点，指出缔约过失责任是缔约一方当事人在缔约过程中违反依诚实信用原则所应承担的先合同义务而造成对方信赖利益的损失时所应承担的民事责任。其次，在比较分析关于缔约过失责任理论基础的四种学说：法律行为说、侵权行为说、法律规定说、诚实信用说的基础上，提出了诚实信用原则是缔约过失责任的理论基础的观点。 二、缔约过失责任理论的历史变迁。对缔约过失责任进行系统、深入研究的，始自德国法学家耶林，他认为，在缔约过程中，缔约双方负有因诚实而产生的积极义务，违反该义务一方当事人负有损害赔偿义务。随着世界经济贸易的飞速发展和人们对信用、诚实的日益重视，世界各国都逐渐承认、接受了缔约过失责任制度。 三、缔约过失责任的构成和适用。首先，笔者认为认定缔约过失责任的构成要件有四：缔约当事人有违反先合同义务行为，违反先合同义务行为给对方造成了信赖利益的损失，违反先合同义务的一方当事人在主观上有过错，违反先合同义务行为与实际损害存在因果关系。其次，综观有关国家的立法和判例，笔者认为缔约过失责任的主要类型有九种：一是假借订立合同，恶意进行磋商；二是故意隐瞒与订立合同有关的重要事实或提供虚假情况；三是撤回和撤销要约不当；四是撤回承诺不当；五是缔约之际未尽通知义务；六是缔约之际未尽保护义务；七是缔约之际未尽保密义务；八是合同元效或被撤销；九是无权代理。最后，结合司法实线，笔者认为有三个问题值得注意：一是在缔约双方共同过错情况下，应视情况实行过失相抵，在明知对方过错情况下，不适用缔约过失；二是时效问题在无明文规定的情况下，可适用1年、2年、4年、20年的有关规定；三是为避免踞契约自由的基本原则，应慎用缔约过失责任制度。 四、缔约过失责任与相关责任制度的比较。深人研究缔约过失责任制度与违约责任、侵权责任及允诺禁反言制度的异同，指出缔约过失责任制度是一种独立的民事责任。 五、我国缔约过失责任立法现状及检讨。分析了我国缔约过失责任制度存在的问题，提出了尽快在法律条文中明确构成要件、适用范围、法律后果及时效的立法建议。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the development of our open - and - reform policy, there is a deeper, wider and more frequent trend in the transaction. In the judicial practice of our country, there isa lot of dispute about contract coming from contracting for negligence and partiers’ action during contracting need law to regulate mosdy. Although our country’ s Contract Lawhas set up Fault In Negotiating, it looks infeasibility. In order to provide a correct choice of institution for Fault In Negotiating of our country, the author made a deep research and discuss on the questions about Fault In Negotiating by institution analysis, practical analysis, comparative analysis and other methods.First, the rationales of Fault In Negotiating. Firstly, the author analyzes the fire viewpoints of this concept by com-paration. He points out it is the civil liability that one party should undertake when he violates the pre - contractualDuties because he disobeys the good faith principles andcauses the other party lose of reliance interests. Secondly, the author points out that the good faith principles is thetheory basis of Fault In Negotiating. On the basis of analyzing the four theories about it: the theory of legalbehavior, the theory of tort behavior, the theory of regulation, the theory of the good faith.Second. History and development of the theory of FaultIn Negotiating. The pioneer who made a comprehension and deeper research on Fault In Negotiating is Yaline, a German Law expert. He considers that the parties of a contract have positive duties coming from honesty during contracting, and the party who breaks them should undertakecompensation duties. With the rapid development of the world economy and transaction, people pay more attention tocredit and honesty. More countries in the world graduallyacknowledge and accept the institution of Fault In Negotiating .Third. The constitution and application of Fault In Negotiating. At first, the author believes that, the constitutive elements of defining Fault In Negotiating have four: one ofcontracting parties has conducts of violating Pre - contractualduties; those conducts lead to the other party’ s loss of reliance interests; one party has subjective faults; those conducts and actual harms have the relationships of cause and effect. Then, observing relevant countries’ legislationand legal precedent, the author believes that, the main types of Fault In Negotiating are the followed: 1. conferring with each other at ill will under the name of contracting; 2. concealing intentionally important facts on con-tracting or providing false information; 3. recalling and annulling inappropriate contracting; 4. recalling inappropriate acceptance; 5. at the time of contracting, not performing informing duty; 6. at the time of contracting, not performingthe protection duty; 7. at the time of contracting, not performing duty of keeping secret; 8. contract being invalidor being annulled; 9. having no acting right. At last, the author thinks that in practice we should pay attention to three problems: first, under circumstances of contributory negligence of both parties, negligence should be counteracted according to the specific situation. Under the circumstances ofbeing aware of the other party’ s faults, negligence should not be applied; second, if there is not obvious regulations in laws on the issue of valid period, the relative regulations for one year, two years, four years and twenty years can be applied; third, the institution of Fault In Negotiating should used prudently, in order to protect the basicprinciple of contracting freely from harming.Fourth. The comparison of Fault In Negotiating and relative liability institutions. The article studies deeply the difference and similarity of Fault In Negotiating and the liability for tort, the liability for breach of contract and theinstitution of acceptance forbidding backing out. Trie articlealso points that Fault In Negotiating is an independent civil liability.Fifth. Hie present sit更多还原