【作者】 张弘；

【导师】 徐卫东；

【作者基本信息】 吉林大学 ， 民商法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 虽然我国在1999年的《合同法》中正式确立了缔约过失制度，但缔约过失制度在我国立法上仍远未得到完善。即便理论界探讨热烈已久，但始终莫衷一是。司法实践中更是操作混乱，难以适从。笔者在法院从事审判业务多年，常常困惑于我国现存的缔约过失制度不能适应经济发展实际需要的现状。为此，本人翻阅了大量资料，研究了我国学者的各种学说，参考了德国、台湾等大陆法系国家的缔约过失理论，结合自己多年司法实践和学习思考，对缔约过失责任的概念、性质和构成要件进行了着重探讨分析，希望能对我国缔约过失制度的完善，债法理论的发展，以及司法实践的掌握有所帮助。本文共分三大部分：第一部分，主要是对缔约过失责任的概念进行分析论述。通过对我国学者关于缔约过失责任概念的不同学说的评价，指出了各家学说存在的不足之处，并将缔约过失责任概念概括定义为：在合同效力确定之前因违反先合同义务而致合同不成立或效力否定，并因此损害了相对方依诚实信用原则而产生的合同的信赖利益时，有过错的一方依法应当承担的损害赔偿责任。本文从四个方面对这一概念进行理解分析：1、缔约过失责任适用的范围，即空间范围和时间范围。首先通过对承诺和合同的成立，合同的成立和生效两组概念的比较，指出传统理论中没有将合同的承诺、成立和生效分开，导致将缔约过失责任限制在订立合同阶段的缺陷。指出合同的订立阶段和合同的效力确定阶段均应划入缔约过失的空间范围之中，科学地区分了缔约过失责任与违约责任不同的空间适用范围。其次对于缔约过失适用的时间范围，本文认为应是可以适用于契约历程的任何阶段。2、对缔约过失责任归责原则的认识。缔约过失的“过失”是指故意和过失，应适用过错原则。3、对效力确定的理解。效力确定是指国家对已成立的合同效力的评价，以确定其是否发生法律效力。4、对先合同义务的理解。阐述了先合同义务 的具体内容后，着重论述了先合同义务作为合同附随义务的特点。第二部分，主要是讨论缔约过失责任的构成要件。1、对“两要件说”“三要件说”“五要件说”进行批判，认为“四要件说”比较合理，但对“四要件说”中两种不同说法的具体要件也进行了评析，认为仍有缺陷。2、本文将缔约过失责任的构成要件归纳为四要件：（1）缔约一方有违反先合同义务的行为，先合同义务是特<WP=36>定当事人之间发生的义务，是一种附随义务，也是一种法律义务。先合同义务的内容为当事人之间的信用关系，是缔约双方在缔约过程中应承担的信用义务。（2）违反先合同义务方主观有过错。过错是主客观相结合的概念，是支配行为人在法律上和道德上应受非难的行为的故意和过失状态，其中的过失应指抽象的轻过失，即债务人缺乏诚实商人和善良家长的注意程度的过失。需要指出的是。缔约过失责任虽以过错责任作为归责原则，但在实践操作中应适用过错推定原则为宜。（3）该违反先合同义务的行为给对方造成信赖利益的损害。缔约过失责任一般发生在合同不成立、无效、被撤消等场合，当事人不得请求履行利益之赔偿，缔约过失所保护的只是原告的消极利益，故赔偿范围仅限于信赖利益。信赖利益的赔偿应包括直接损失和间接损失。精神损害赔偿在特殊情况下也应考虑。关于信赖利益的赔偿不应以履行利益为界限。（4）违反先合同义务行为与对方受到损害之间存在着因果关系。缔约过失制度采取相当因果关系说更能周密保护缔约人的信赖利益，可采用第三人的标准为因果关系的范围划定一个合理界限。第三部分，主要讨论的是缔约过失责任的赔偿范围。1、对罗马法上的缔约过失责任赔偿范围及当代学者的观点列举。2、本文观点：一般情况下，缔约过失责任的赔偿范围不应以履行利益为前提，它应当包括直接损失和间接损失，且不以履行利益为限。更多还原

【Abstract】 Despite that liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts is stipulated in Contract Law of our country in 1999,it still remains far less from unquestionable on legislation .The hot issue has long been under discussion by the academic circle, but the agreement has not been reached yet.moreover,in the legal practice the items can be hardly operated, which makes the cases judged without proper clauses to be invoked As a legal personnel engaged in the career for years, I am often confused that the existing items concerning liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts in our country is not able to be in conformation with the requirement in reality. Therefore, I refer to a lot of materials concerning the theories of the scholars of China’s mainland, Germany and Taiwan as well, and with regard of my years of work and research experiences, focus on and research into the concept, characteristics, and general elements of Liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts. I expect that it will be helpful for the research of liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts, the theory of law of obligation, and legal practice.The article is composed of three parts:part I, mainly treats the concept of liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts. Through the observation on the different theories by the scholars in our nation, this part demonstrates the deficiencies of them, and thus define liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts as: before contract becomes effective, where either party fails to perform obligations before fulfillment of contract, which leads to ineffectiveness or invalidity of contract and damages to the other party′s reasonably expected interests on the principle of good faith, the party has fault shall bear the obligations in accordance with laws. The part analyses the concept from four aspects: 1. The scopes of application of liability for wrongs in conclusion, namely space and time. First , the comparisons are made between two compels of concepts, the acceptance and conclusion, and the conclusion and validation, which demonstrates that the three concepts are confused in the traditional theory, thus leading to the result that liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts is only confined to the phase of negotiation. <WP=38>Then the part further illustrates that during both of the phase of negotiation and the phase of coming to force, liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts should be imposed, and therefore the space scope to impose liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts and liability for breach of contracts are scientifically distinguished. Secondly, as to the time scope of application, this part holds that liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts is allowed to be imputed during the whole process.2The recognition on the imputation principles of liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts. The ‘wrongs’ in conclusion mean intentional breach of contract or breach of contract by negligence, to either of which the imputation principle of fault should be applied.3.The recognition on validity of contracts. validity is an evaluation given by the state to define whether the contract is effective.4.The recognition on the obligations of contracts. This part expounds the details of the obligations before the fulfillment of contracts, in which the characteristics of the obligations, as the subsidiary obligations of contracts are emphasized.part Π is mainly about the general elements of liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts.1.This part points out the faults of the theories of ‘three elements’, ‘four elements’ and ‘five elements’ .Making a comparison between two different compositions of four elements, the part holds that the theory of ‘four elements’ is more reasonable, although there exists deficiencies in it.2.The conclusion is drawn in the article that liability for wrongs in conclusion of contracts composed of four elements:(1)Either party fails to perform the obligations binding curtain parties before the fulfillment of contract; the kind of obligatio更多还原