【作者】 侍雯；

【导师】 李永军；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 民商法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 契约中的信赖与信赖利益在英美国家和德国都有一定研究,然而在我国,学者对其研究一直停留在信赖利益到底是利益还是损害等字面含义的纠缠上以及对于缔约过失责任制度的附带研究中。本文试图对此有所突破。文章界定了信赖与信赖利益的含义,系统阐述了两大法系的信赖与信赖利益学说,探究了其本质,并且就信赖学说所存在的问题进行了进一步探讨。文章分为四个部分:第一部分从学者对信赖与信赖利益的研究出发,详细界定契约法上的信赖与信赖利益的含义。就信赖而言,狭义的信赖是一种事实状态,有主客观两方面的表现;广义的信赖是指契约法上的信赖规则或信赖理论。就信赖利益而言,有损害说和利益说之争,但是其最终着眼于损害,损害说和利益说并不冲突。第二部分从比较法的角度系统阐述两大法系的信赖学说,并且将其制度建构进行比较。两大法系的共同之处表明:信赖学说突破了传统的契约法,扩大了契约法的调整范围和契约责任的范围。第三部分进一步分析信赖责任与信赖利益赔偿责任的性质。信赖学说究其本质包含了两个方面的含义,一是以信赖作为契约效力的来源,形成信赖责任,二是以信赖利益作为赔偿标准,使得受害方恢复到没有信赖发生时的地位。文章认为,信赖责任是扩大了的契约责任,而信赖利益赔偿责任则不能统一定性。信赖利益赔偿责任是信赖责任的一种表现形式,信赖责任还包括了其他责任形式。第四部分就信赖学说的两个不可缺少的方面所存在的问题提出质疑。认为不管从规范意义上,还是从技术意义上(损害赔偿的角度),信赖学说都不能为契约法提供一个相对于传统的意思理论更优的理论建构。文章最后得出结论:信赖责任扩大了契约责任,保持了契约法与侵权法的体系划分,方便了法律实践的操作;但是基于信赖产生的责任只能作为契约责任的补充,信赖规则不应当动摇契约自由、意思自治原则在契约法上的根本地位。更多还原

【Abstract】 Reliance and reliance interest are studied in both Anglo-American countries and Germany, while in China what scholars are doing is only focused on what reliance interest really is. Is it benefit or harm in nature? And more often than not, the research is done within the system of Culpa In Contrahendio. This thesis tries to make a break. It gives the definition of reliance and reliance interest, explains systematically the relative theories in the two different law families, investigates its nature and further raises some problems as well.The thesis is divided into four parts as follows:The first part starts from scholars’definition to confine the connotation of reliance and reliance interest. As far as reliance is concerned, it means a kind of state of fact in a narrow sense, both objectively and subjectively; while in a broad sense, it is reliance theory or reliance rule in contract law. As for reliance interest, there exists the controversy between harm theory and benefit theory, which to the author makes no sense, as they both end in damages suffered by the reliance party and thus there’s nocontradiction in the final analysis.Part two expounds the theory of reliance and reliance interest in the two law families and makes a comparison of the systems from the perspective of comparative law. The common ground reveals that reliance theory has made a breakthrough to the traditional contract law. Therefore the application of contract law is enlarged and the contract responsibility is extended. Part three analyzes further the nature of reliance responsibilities and reliance interest damages. Reliance theory covers two aspects at the bottom: on one hand, it bases the contract on reliance, and thus forms the reliance responsibility; on the other hand, it considers reliance interest as its criteria for damages, rendering the reliance party in the original position if no reliance had occurred. This thesis holds that reliance responsibilities belong to enlarged contract responsibilities while reliance interest damages cannot be generalized in nature. In addition, reliance responsibilities include reliance interest damages as one form, but not the only form.Part four tries to call in question the two aspects of reliance theory narrated above. We can find that reliance theory cannot offer a theory superior to the traditional will theory.At last, a conclusion was made that reliance theory expands the contract responsibility, maintains the division of contract law and tort law and facilitates the legal practice. However, reliance responsibility can only be the supplement of contract responsibility, and reliance rule should not substitute for the principle of freedom of contract.更多还原