本文選題：美國法　切入點：純粹經(jīng)濟損失　出處：《北京化工大學》2012年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：純粹經(jīng)濟損失是一種經(jīng)濟利益上的無形損害。然而，由于純粹經(jīng)濟損失的抽象性與遠隔性，多數(shù)國家在確認其作為一種經(jīng)濟利益損害的同時拒絕對其進行救濟,純粹經(jīng)濟損失是作為排除法律救濟的工具而出現(xiàn)的。在19世紀末，在德國、英格蘭和美國相繼出現(xiàn)了有關(guān)純粹經(jīng)濟損失的案例。純粹經(jīng)濟損失是在任何法律體系下都可能出現(xiàn)的普遍性問題，與普通法系和民法法系的體系特點無關(guān)。所以，，美國法關(guān)于純粹經(jīng)濟損失的判例學說和立法對我們有著同樣的借鑒價值。純粹經(jīng)濟損失問題的研究是美國侵權(quán)法學界在20世紀的研究熱點，涌現(xiàn)出了大量的判例學說，是對于純粹經(jīng)濟損失研究最為活躍的國家。因此，筆者探討了美國法對于純粹經(jīng)濟損失救濟制度的基本框架，希望對我國民法框架下處理類似的純粹經(jīng)濟損失問題有所幫助。在具體結(jié)構(gòu)安排上，本文分為六個部分： 第一部分探究了美國法上純粹經(jīng)濟損失概念的復(fù)雜性，在分析美國學者對純粹經(jīng)濟損失定義的基礎(chǔ)上，為純粹經(jīng)濟損失的概念作出了定義。 第二部分闡述了美國法上的純粹經(jīng)濟損失類型。根據(jù)美國侵權(quán)法學者弗萊明教授和羅伯特森教授的論述，整理了美國各州法院在司法實踐當中形成的主要九類事實案型,力求對美國法上純粹經(jīng)濟損失的表現(xiàn)形態(tài)作一全景式的呈現(xiàn)。然后根據(jù)德國學者克里斯蒂安·馮·巴爾教授的分類模式，將美國學說上關(guān)于純粹經(jīng)濟損失的類型劃分為經(jīng)驗性形象類型和邏輯的理念類型。 第三部分介紹了美國法關(guān)于純粹經(jīng)濟損失救濟的概況。首先闡述了美國各州法律對于純粹經(jīng)濟損失救濟趨同的傾向和原因。接著介紹了美國法對于純粹經(jīng)濟損失的一般救濟制度。 第四部分探討了美國法關(guān)于純粹經(jīng)濟損失救濟的主流現(xiàn)實路徑—純粹經(jīng)濟損失不予救濟原則和例外。 第五部分探討了美國法關(guān)于純粹經(jīng)濟損失的救濟路徑對于我國的借鑒意義。首先闡述了適用原則—例外路徑的制度價值。接著介紹了我國侵權(quán)法應(yīng)給予純粹經(jīng)濟損失救濟的例外類型，包括利益第三人和對第三人不當陳述。
[Abstract]:Pure economic loss is an intangible damage of economic interest. However, because of the abstract and remote nature of pure economic loss, most countries refuse to remedy it while recognizing it as a kind of economic interest damage, Pure economic loss arose as a tool to exclude legal remedies. At the end of 19th century, in Germany, There have been cases of pure economic loss in England and the United States in succession. Pure economic loss is a common problem that can arise under any legal system and has nothing to do with the characteristics of the common law system and the civil law system. The case theory and legislation of American law on pure economic loss have the same value for reference to us. The study of pure economic loss is a hot research topic in American tort law circles in 20th century, and a large number of jurisprudence theories have emerged. Is the most active country for pure economic loss. Therefore, the author discusses the basic framework of American law for the relief system of pure economic loss. It is hoped that it will be helpful to deal with the similar problems of pure economic loss under the framework of civil law of our country. In the specific structure arrangement, this paper is divided into six parts:. The first part explores the complexity of the concept of pure economic loss in American law, and defines the concept of pure economic loss on the basis of analyzing the definition of pure economic loss by American scholars. The second part expounds the types of pure economic loss in American law. According to the statements of American Tort Law scholars Professor Fleming and Professor Robertson, the author collates the main nine kinds of factual cases formed by American state courts in judicial practice. Trying to make a panoramic representation of pure economic loss in American law, and then according to the classification model of German scholar Christian von Barr, The types of pure economic losses in American doctrine are divided into empirical image types and logical conceptual types. The third part introduces the general situation of pure economic loss relief in American law. Firstly, it expounds the tendency and reason of the convergence of American state law for pure economic loss relief, and then introduces the tendency of American law to pure economic loss. A lost general relief system. In the 4th part, the author discusses the mainstream practical path of American law on the relief of pure economic loss-the principle and exception of non-remedy for pure economic loss. Part 5th discusses the reference meaning of the remedy path of the pure economic loss in American law to our country. Firstly, it expounds the system value of the applicable principle-exceptional path. Then it introduces that the tort law of our country should be given pure classics. The exceptional types of relief for economic losses, Including the interests of the third party and misrepresentation to the third party.
【學位授予單位】：北京化工大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D971.2;DD913

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 鄭超明;;論非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的理論基礎(chǔ)——以美國法的理論和判例為視角[J];知識經(jīng)濟;2011年17期

2 周s

本文編號：1575134