本文選題：旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者　切入點(diǎn)：民事責(zé)任　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：我國(guó)旅游業(yè)呈現(xiàn)出快速發(fā)展的趨勢(shì)，但是由此產(chǎn)生的旅游者與旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者之間的糾紛也日益增多，而我國(guó)相關(guān)的立法并不完善。本文圍繞著旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的民事責(zé)任展開(kāi)研究。筆者認(rèn)為旅游合同是指旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者向旅游者提供旅游服務(wù)，雙方因此明確相互權(quán)利義務(wù)關(guān)系的協(xié)議，是一種新的獨(dú)立的合同類(lèi)型。 旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的民事責(zé)任包括締約過(guò)失和違約責(zé)任等。其中，旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的締約過(guò)失責(zé)任可以基于旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者不具備法定的資格以及旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的欺詐產(chǎn)生。就旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的違約責(zé)任而言，可分為因旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者自身的原因?qū)е碌倪`約以及因旅游輔助服務(wù)者導(dǎo)致的違約。同時(shí)，筆者還探討了旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者擅自轉(zhuǎn)讓旅游業(yè)務(wù)致使旅游者遭受損害導(dǎo)致的違約以及旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者對(duì)于旅游者安全保障義務(wù)的違反的問(wèn)題。 當(dāng)然，本文論述的重點(diǎn)是旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者違約的精神損害賠償責(zé)任、時(shí)間浪費(fèi)損害賠償責(zé)任以及欺詐的懲罰性賠償責(zé)任。 就旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者違約的精神損害賠償責(zé)任而言，我國(guó)立法否認(rèn)旅游者可以基于違約主張旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的精神損害賠償責(zé)任。但這是不合理的。首先，采取責(zé)任競(jìng)合的方式是不利于充分有效的維護(hù)旅游者的利益。其次，存在著旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者并沒(méi)有侵權(quán)的行為，而僅僅存在著違約的行為導(dǎo)致旅游者產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重的精神損害的情況。最后，確立旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者違約的精神損害賠償責(zé)任對(duì)于旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者并不存在不公平。因?yàn)槁糜握呗糜蔚哪康氖菫榱藠蕵?lè)，在旅游的過(guò)程當(dāng)中產(chǎn)生了旅游者的精神利益，旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者對(duì)于其違約行為可能產(chǎn)生的對(duì)于旅游者精神利益的損害是可以預(yù)見(jiàn)也是應(yīng)當(dāng)預(yù)見(jiàn)的，所以并不違反違約損害賠償?shù)目深A(yù)見(jiàn)性規(guī)則。筆者認(rèn)為該責(zé)任有以下構(gòu)成要件：旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者必須存在著違約行為，旅游者遭受了比較嚴(yán)重的精神損害，違約行為與精神損害之間存在著因果關(guān)系以及旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。 就旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的時(shí)間浪費(fèi)損害賠償責(zé)任而言，我國(guó)立法也沒(méi)有做出規(guī)定。筆者認(rèn)為應(yīng)當(dāng)確立此種責(zé)任。該責(zé)任有以下幾個(gè)構(gòu)成要件：旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者存在著違約行為；旅游者浪費(fèi)了時(shí)間以及旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者具有過(guò)錯(cuò)。同時(shí)，，筆者認(rèn)為可以參照臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的做法規(guī)定旅游者就每日的時(shí)間浪費(fèi)以不超過(guò)旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者所收旅游費(fèi)用總額每日平均之?dāng)?shù)額為限，這樣也不會(huì)導(dǎo)致旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者承擔(dān)過(guò)重的責(zé)任。當(dāng)然，旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的時(shí)間浪費(fèi)損害賠償責(zé)任與精神損害賠償責(zé)任是并行不悖的。 就旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者欺詐的懲罰性賠償責(zé)任而言，最高院規(guī)定：旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者提供服務(wù)時(shí)有欺詐行為，旅游者請(qǐng)求旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者雙倍賠償其遭受的損失的，人民法院應(yīng)予支持。筆者認(rèn)為該責(zé)任有以下幾個(gè)構(gòu)成要件：旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者存在欺詐行為，旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者主觀上需要具有故意，旅游者因旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者的欺詐而為錯(cuò)誤的意思表示。 最后，筆者分析了旅游經(jīng)營(yíng)者民事責(zé)任的免責(zé)事由，包括法定和約定兩種。法定的免責(zé)事由又包括不可抗力，意外事件，旅游者自身的過(guò)錯(cuò)和第三人的行為。
[Abstract]:China's tourism industry showing a trend of rapid development, but between the tourists and tourism operators disputes are increasing, and the relevant legislation in our country is not perfect. This paper focuses on the civil liability of the tourism operators to launch the research. The author thinks that the travel contract refers to the tourism operators to provide travel services to tourists, so the two sides clear mutual rights and obligations of the agreement, is a new type of independent contract.
The civil liability of the tourism operators including contracting negligence and breach of responsibility. Among them, the tourism operators contractingfault liability can have a tour operator does not have legal qualifications and tourism operators. Based on fraud operators' liability for breach of contract, breach of contract can be divided into reasons for tourism operators of their own and breach of contract caused by tourism ancillary services the. At the same time, the author also discusses the tourism operators unauthorized transfer of tourism business in tourists suffered damage caused by breach of contract and tourism operators in violation of the security obligations of tourists.
Of course, the emphasis of this article is on the liability for compensation for mental damage of the tour operators, the compensation liability for time waste and the punitive liability of fraud.
The mental damage compensation liability for breach of tour operators, tourists can deny our legislation of compensation for spiritual damages based on breach of contract claimtourism operators responsibility. But it is not reasonable. Firstly, take the liability concurrence way is not conducive to fully and effectively safeguard the interests of tourists. Secondly, there is no infringement and tour operators the behavior, but only there is a breach of contract caused severe spiritual damage to tourists. Finally, the establishment of mental damage compensation for breach of tour operators of tourism operators does not exist unfair. Because tourist'stravel purpose is to entertain, resulting in a tour of the spirit interest in tourism process, for the spirit of the interests of tourists tourism operators may have damage for its breach is predictable and should be predictable, so not illegal The damages for breach of the foreseeability rule. The author thinks that this liability has the following elements: tourism operators must exist in the breach, tourists suffered serious mental damage, mental damage between breach of contract and there is a causal relationship and tourism operators have the mistake.
You waste time damage compensation liability of the tourism operators, China's legislation did not make provisions. The author believes that we should establish such liability. This liability has the following elements: tourism operators exist breach; tourist waste of time and the tourism operator has fault. At the same time, the author thinks that can refer to the practice of Taiwan area tourism regulations who will waste the time of day with no more than the tour operator received the total travel cost the average daily amount is limited, this will not lead to tourism operators assumesoverweight responsibility. Of course, the waste time damage tourism operators liability for compensation and spiritual damages is run parallel.
On the punitive damages of tour operators in terms of the fraud, the Supreme Court Rules: tourism operators to provide services of fraud, tourists canrequest tourism operators double compensation for the losses, the people's court shall support. The author thinks that this liability has the following elements: tourism operators fraud, tourism operators subjective need deliberately, tourists for tourism operators for fraud and wrong meaning.
Finally, the author analyzes the exemption reasons of the civil liability of tour operators, including two kinds of statutory and contractual terms. The statutory exemption includes force majeure, accident, tourist's own fault and third party's behavior.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 謝雯;尹彥品;;旅游合同中旅游營(yíng)業(yè)人的民事責(zé)任[J];河北法學(xué);2007年12期

2 馬國(guó)香;付敏;;論旅游合同中旅游者的時(shí)間浪費(fèi)請(qǐng)求權(quán)[J];黃山學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期

3 楊振宏;;旅游合同違約的損害賠償項(xiàng)目研究——兼論時(shí)間浪費(fèi)賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)的參考價(jià)值[J];北京第二外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2009年07期

4 夏月星;旅游合同中的非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害賠償責(zé)任——從“死神陪伴的旅行”終審判決談起[J];安徽警官職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年02期

5 羅光華;;旅游合同糾紛中旅行社常見(jiàn)的幾種法律責(zé)任問(wèn)題[J];九江學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

6 高圣平,劉璐;試論旅游糾紛的法律適用[J];旅游學(xué)刊;2005年01期

7 龔滔;論我國(guó)旅游合同瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任的建立[J];旅游學(xué)刊;2005年04期

8 胡玉浪;;時(shí)間浪費(fèi)與損害賠償——以旅游合同為例[J];旅游學(xué)刊;2011年07期

9 徐躍;日本的“新旅游法”及其思考[J];旅游學(xué)刊;1997年01期

10 馮鐘鳴;;對(duì)《最高人民法院關(guān)于審理旅游糾紛案件適用法律若干問(wèn)題的規(guī)定》第二十一條的思考[J];企業(yè)家天地(理論版);2011年06期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 楊光;旅游合同中旅行社違約責(zé)任研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2007年

2 孔健;旅游合同中旅行社責(zé)任研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2007年

3 王延鴻;旅游合同中旅游營(yíng)業(yè)人法律責(zé)任問(wèn)題研究[D];蘭州大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1589814