本文選題：同案不同判　切入點(diǎn)：合同解釋　出處：《蘭州大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：南京蘇高專利事務(wù)所訴南京巨勝科技有限公司委托合同糾紛案經(jīng)過(guò)了一審、二審、再審。在我國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)、文化發(fā)達(dá)的東部地區(qū),法官素質(zhì)相對(duì)較高,卻依然出現(xiàn)了“對(duì)同樣的事實(shí),不同的法官或合議庭審理,結(jié)果卻出現(xiàn)了大相徑庭的判決”。在對(duì)上述案例的研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)：合同解釋難造成了該同案不同判現(xiàn)象的產(chǎn)生。合同糾紛訴訟往往離不開(kāi)“對(duì)有爭(zhēng)議內(nèi)容的理解和確認(rèn)”,即“合同解釋”。合同解釋的研究對(duì)合同糾紛相關(guān)案件的解決有著重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中的法律問(wèn)題往往是一個(gè)綜合體,和心理學(xué)、經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)等各跨學(xué)科、各跨領(lǐng)域的相關(guān)研究有著千絲萬(wàn)縷的聯(lián)系。本案例分析將以“心理認(rèn)知偏見(jiàn)”和“法律實(shí)踐與成本耗費(fèi)的關(guān)系”這兩個(gè)角度從合同糾紛的產(chǎn)生入手,進(jìn)行合同解釋的案例研究：首先,無(wú)論是當(dāng)事人還是法官,無(wú)論是合同糾紛的產(chǎn)生和法官對(duì)案件事實(shí)的認(rèn)定都離不開(kāi)對(duì)合同條款的心理認(rèn)知,而人在心理認(rèn)知的過(guò)程中往往存在著認(rèn)知偏見(jiàn)；其次,商事合同是一種交易關(guān)系,交易成本越低則交易所追逐的利益也就越豐厚,交易成本制約了當(dāng)事人所訂立的合同的質(zhì)量,制約了當(dāng)事人的舉證能力。同時(shí)司法成本也同樣制約著法庭審判的質(zhì)量。 理想狀態(tài)下法官必須盡可能多的認(rèn)識(shí)到案件事實(shí)的全貌,越“精確”越有可能作出令當(dāng)事人各方都信服的判決。然而實(shí)務(wù)當(dāng)中“精確”意味著更大的成本耗費(fèi)和法官的自身素質(zhì)要求。法官自身的素質(zhì)水平也離不開(kāi)成本的制約。 本文重點(diǎn)關(guān)注以下幾個(gè)問(wèn)題：法官應(yīng)當(dāng)如何避免自己的認(rèn)知偏見(jiàn)對(duì)案件審理造成影響；司法成本與事實(shí)認(rèn)定的精確度之間應(yīng)當(dāng)如何取舍；我國(guó)《合同法》關(guān)于合同解釋相關(guān)問(wèn)題的規(guī)定采用的是什么樣的理論基礎(chǔ)；在大陸法系由客觀主義合同解釋轉(zhuǎn)向主觀主義合同解釋的潮流中,我國(guó)《合同法》采取的合同解釋理論基礎(chǔ)是否已經(jīng)過(guò)時(shí),落后于生產(chǎn)力發(fā)展,從而造成了同案不同判的出現(xiàn)。對(duì)上述問(wèn)題的研究有利于在一定程度上減少同案不同判的出現(xiàn),維護(hù)司法公信力。
[Abstract]:Nanjing Sugao Patent Office v. Nanjing Jusheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. after the first instance, second instance, retrial.In the economic and cultural developed eastern region of our country, the quality of judges is relatively high, but still appeared "the same facts, different judges or collegiate bench hearing, but the result of a very different judgment".In the study of the above cases, it is found that the difficult interpretation of the contract causes the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case.Contract dispute litigation is often inseparable from "understanding and confirming the disputed content", that is, "contract interpretation".The study of contract interpretation is of great practical significance to the settlement of contract disputes.In practice, the legal problem is often a synthesis, and psychology, economics and other interdisciplinary, cross-related research has inextricably linked.This case study will start with the emergence of contract disputes from the perspectives of "psychological cognitive bias" and "the relationship between legal practice and cost cost". First of all, whether the parties concerned or the judge, the case study will be carried out.The lower the transaction cost, the richer the benefit the exchange pursues. The transaction cost restricts the quality of the contract concluded by the parties, and restricts the party's ability to prove.At the same time, judicial costs also restrict the quality of court trials.Ideally, the judge must realize as much as possible the full picture of the facts of the case, and the more accurate the judge is, the more likely he is to make a judgment that is convincing to all parties.In practice, however, "precision" means greater cost and judges' own qualities.The judge's own quality level also cannot leave the cost restriction.What is the theoretical basis for the relevant provisions of contract interpretation in China's contract Law; in the trend of civil law system from objectivism contract interpretation to subjectivism contract interpretation,Whether the theoretical basis of contract interpretation adopted in contract Law of our country is out of date and lagging behind the development of productive forces has resulted in the appearance of different judgments in the same case.To a certain extent, the research on the above problems is helpful to reduce the appearance of different judgments in the same case and to maintain the judicial credibility.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 李岳;;合同語(yǔ)言的內(nèi)在秩序與合同解釋的客觀主義[J];西華大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年03期

2 李永軍;論合同解釋對(duì)當(dāng)事人自治否定的正當(dāng)性與矯正性制度安排[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2004年02期

3 陳文華;;法律解釋中的交易習(xí)慣——以我國(guó)合同法為視角[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2011年02期

4 吳旭莉;;英美法系合同解釋規(guī)則研究[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年04期

5 梁慧星;;論合同解釋[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);1986年01期

6 高忠智;;美國(guó)合同法“口頭證據(jù)規(guī)則”對(duì)我國(guó)合同解釋的借鑒意義[J];環(huán)球法律評(píng)論;2008年05期

7 李蒞賓;;商業(yè)活動(dòng)需注重合同解釋與證據(jù)采信[J];中國(guó)商貿(mào);2010年Z1期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 江蘇省蘇州市中級(jí)人民法院 游冰峰;[N];人民法院報(bào);2009年

2 案例編寫人 江蘇省高級(jí)人民法院 李道麗;[N];人民法院報(bào);2010年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 周艷;合同解釋論[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 黃敏;私法自治理念下的合同解釋[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2006年

2 常宗禹;論合同解釋制度[D];華東政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1726287