【作者】 赵振士；

【导师】 王涌；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2010， 硕士

【摘要】 本文的研究主题是“单方允诺法律制度”,主要论证了行为人对他人所为给付之意思表示的单方法律行为是否可以产生债之关系,即单方允诺是否可与与合同、侵权、无因管理和不当得利、缔约过失并列作为立法上的债之发生原因之一。通过比较研究和实证分析,笔者认为,以立法的方式确认单方允诺系意定之债的发生原因之一确有必要,并进一步确立了这一制度得以发生法律效力的构成要件。将单方允诺作为债的发生原因之一意义重大,一方面,这弥补了既有法律之漏洞,将现实中诸多单方允诺之现实纳入单方允诺法律制度的解释范畴;另一方面,又为合同法松绑,打破了意定之债只有合同之债这一种形式的狭隘认识,化解了只能以合同法来保护诸多单方允诺情形下的利益的问题。最后笔者对我国债法引入单方允诺制度的立法方式提出了简单的建议,期望能给立法提供参考。本文除引言和结论外,共有五章,其内容简单介绍如下:第一章:从实际案例出发,指出在实务中有诸多合同法无法解决的单方允诺现象存在,这些允诺的效力无法纳入合同法的“要约—承诺”模式予以分析,因此,单方允诺的问题并非法律解释的问题,而是立法选择的问题。单方允诺是单方法律行为之一种,但不是要约,亦不同于单务合同,在比较了这几个类似概念之后,笔者为单方允诺做出了初步定义。第二章:通过对英美法系国家关于单方允诺立法经验的介绍,分析了英美法系对于这一问题的处理方式。英美法系通过合同法中的约因理论和允诺禁反言原则,合理地解释了单方允诺得以产生合同法之拘束力的原因。这种特有处理方式并非大陆法系所能借鉴的,但是大陆法系国家可以吸取其立法精神。第三章:通过对大陆法系各主要国家关于单方允诺立法规定的比较研究,指出单方允诺确系各国立法规定的债之发生原因之一,各国或作概括式法律规定,或作例举式法律规定,将单方允诺视为产生债之关系的法律原因。立法方式的不同并非对单方允诺是否为债之发生原因这一基本问题存在异议,只不过是立法技术和司法考量的结果而已。第四章:在前两章比较研究的基础之上,结合苏格兰这一大陆法系地区对单方允诺的法律规定,得出了单方允诺有效须具备的两个构成要件:单方允诺须为单方法律行为;单方允诺须以一定方式作出,或者虽不符合一定方式,但若单方允诺须使对方产生信赖且该信赖是允诺人所预见到的,而且允诺人违反允诺对受允诺人造成的损失是重大的,则该允诺也可以强制执行。第五章:审视我国关于债之发生原因的法律规定,指出其不足之处,并提出相应的立法建议。着重分析了单方允诺和缔约过失制度以及合同制度两种类似制度的契合问题,并建议我国应采取概括加列举式的立法模式来对单方允诺法律制度予以规定。更多还原

【Abstract】 The subject of this article is“the theory of unilateral promise”, which discusses whether the unilateral legal act of promise that one will perform the delivery will produce an obligation. That is, whether the unilateral promise can be listed as one of the reasons that produce obligation, paralleled with contract, tort, voluntary service, unjustified enrichment and negligence in conclusion of a contract. Through comparative research and empirical analysis, the author believes that it is necessary for the law to confirm that unilateral promise is one of the reasons that produce obligation. After that, the author analyses the constructive elements of the unilateral promise. It’s significant to acknowledge that unilateral promise can produce obligation. For one side, it can supplement the insufficiency of the system of existing law. The theory of unilateral promise can resolve the empirical problems of unilateral promise. For the other side, the theory of unilateral promise liberates contract law, which breaks the tradition that intended obligation can only be produced by contract, and resolves the problem that only contract law can protect the interests in the cases of unilateral promise. At last, the author gives some advice on the legislation of unilateral promise, expecting which can give some reference to the legislator.There are five chapters except the introduction and the conclusion. The summary of each chapter is as follows:ChapterⅠ: Beginning with the practical cases, this chapter suggests that there are lots of problems of unilateral promise which can not be resolved by contract law. The effects of these promises can not be analyzed according to the“offer-acceptance”model of contract law. So the problem of unilateral promise is not a problem that can be resolved by legal interpretation. It is a problem of the choice of legislation. The theory of unilateral promise should be brought into the law of obligation. Unilateral promise is one of the unilateral legal acts, but it’s not the offer, neither the unilateral contract. After comparing these similar concepts, the author gives the preliminary definition of unilateral promise.ChapterⅡ: Through the introduction of the theory on unilateral promise in the common law system, this chapter analyses how the problem of unilateral promise is resolved in common law countries. The contract law in common law system indicates that unilateral promise can produce the effect of contract because of the theory of consideration and the principle of promissory estoppel. The peculiar legal rule of the common law system can not be copied directly by our continental law countries, but we can absorb the spirit of their legislation.ChapterⅢ: through comparative research of the unilateral promise in continent law system, this chapter suggests that unilateral promise is one of the reasons that produce obligation in these countries. The legislative methods of the unilateral promise in these countries are different, including general rule manner and specific rule manner. Although their legislative methods are different, they unanimously believe that unilateral promise can produce obligation. The only difference is their legislative technique.ChapterⅣ: After the comparative research of the former two chapters, combining the relevant law on unilateral promise in Scotland, this chapter concludes the constructive elements of unilateral promise: unilateral promise must be unilateral legal act; unilateral promise must be made in certain manner. If the promise is not made in the manner, but the reliance of the promisee has been foreseen by the promisor, and the damage of the promisee is material if the promisor breaks his promise, then the promise is enforceable.ChapterⅤ: This chapter surveys the reasons of the obligation in Chinese obligation law, and points out the insufficiency of the legal system. Then this chapter comes up with some legislative advice. Chapter five analyzes the consistence of the theory of unilateral promise with the law of contract and the theory of negligence in conclusion of a contract. At last, this chapter suggests that Chinese obligation law should adopt the general rule manner combined with specific rule manner to stipulate the unilateral promise.更多还原