本文選題：純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失 + 賠償方式　； 參考：《湘潭大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的快速發(fā)展和社會(huì)主體間聯(lián)系方式的深刻變革，由不當(dāng)行為所導(dǎo)致的損害越來(lái)越多的以經(jīng)濟(jì)利益損害為表現(xiàn)形態(tài)，純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失就是一種典型的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益損害。它是指因他人一定行為所造成的受害人金錢(qián)上的損失，而這一損失非因受害人絕對(duì)權(quán)受侵害或債權(quán)被違反而產(chǎn)生。由于這類損害發(fā)生后連鎖效應(yīng)強(qiáng)，不確定因素多，若給予賠償，則可能導(dǎo)致責(zé)任的無(wú)限蔓延；若一概不予賠償，又有損法律的公平與正義。因此，純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償問(wèn)題已成為法律研究中無(wú)法回避的難題。 歐洲各國(guó)為解決這一問(wèn)題作了許多探索和努力，并形成了三種典型處理模式：一是以英國(guó)為代表的實(shí)用式體系，二是以德國(guó)為代表的保守式體系，三是以法國(guó)為代表的放任式體系。三種處理模式對(duì)我國(guó)純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償提供了可供參考的經(jīng)驗(yàn)。2009年《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》通過(guò)，其一般侵權(quán)行為條款的設(shè)計(jì)上與法國(guó)十分相似，純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)利益作為一種民事權(quán)益受到法律認(rèn)可。但學(xué)界普遍認(rèn)為對(duì)純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的保護(hù)不應(yīng)達(dá)到和絕對(duì)權(quán)同等的地步，必須在現(xiàn)有法律框架內(nèi)通過(guò)法律技術(shù)手段將責(zé)任控制在一個(gè)合理的范圍。 事實(shí)上我國(guó)并不具備借鑒法國(guó)模式的條件，一是我國(guó)允許違約責(zé)任和侵權(quán)責(zé)任的競(jìng)合，采取法國(guó)模式會(huì)產(chǎn)生合同法向侵權(quán)法的逃避；二是我國(guó)法官的整體素質(zhì)決定了我們不能賦予法官過(guò)多的自由裁量權(quán)。可行之道是對(duì)《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》一般侵權(quán)行為條款進(jìn)行目的性限縮，建立特別規(guī)范、保護(hù)性法律和故意違背善良風(fēng)俗三層純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的立法保護(hù)體系。與此同時(shí)，，做好純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失類型化的積累，依社會(huì)需求不斷歸納出新的可賠償?shù)念愋�，并期待立法機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償作出及時(shí)而精致的制度安排。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of the market economy and the profound change of the way of connection between the social subjects, the damage caused by the improper behavior is more and more characterized by the economic interest damage, and the pure economic loss is a typical kind of economic interest damage. It refers to the loss of the victim's money caused by certain acts of others, which is not caused by the infringement of the victim's absolute right or the violation of his creditor's rights. Because of the strong chain effect and many uncertain factors after the occurrence of this kind of damage, if compensation is given, it may lead to the unlimited spread of liability; if it is not compensated at all, it will damage the fairness and justice of the law. Therefore, the problem of compensation for pure economic loss has become an unavoidable problem in legal research. European countries have made a lot of exploration and efforts to solve this problem, and formed three typical treatment models: one is the practical system represented by Britain, the other is the conservative system represented by Germany. Third, the laissez-faire system represented by France. The three treatment models provide reference experience for the compensation of pure economic loss in our country. In 2009, the Tort liability Law was passed, and its general tort provisions are designed very similar to those of France. Pure economic interests as a kind of civil rights and interests are recognized by law. However, it is generally believed that the protection of pure economic loss should not be equal to the absolute right, and the liability must be controlled within a reasonable range through legal and technical means within the existing legal framework. As a matter of fact, our country does not have the conditions to learn from the French model. First, our country allows the concurrence of the liability for breach of contract and the liability for tort, and the adoption of the French model will result in the escape from contract law to tort law. Second, the overall quality of our judges determines that we can not give judges too much discretion. The feasible way is to constrict the general tort provisions of the Tort liability Law, establish a special norm, protect law and deliberately violate the good custom three layers of pure economic loss legislative protection system. At the same time, the accumulation of the type of pure economic loss should be done well, and the new types of compensation should be summed up according to the needs of the society, and the legislature would be expected to make timely and delicate institutional arrangements for the compensation of pure economic losses.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湘潭大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 于飛;;論德國(guó)侵權(quán)法中的“框架權(quán)”[J];比較法研究;2012年02期

2 章英杰,李潔;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的過(guò)失侵權(quán)責(zé)任[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年07期

3 朱廣新;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范模式——我國(guó)侵權(quán)行為法對(duì)純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范樣式[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年05期

4 張新寶;張小義;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的幾個(gè)基本問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)雜志;2007年04期

5 韓立新;;海洋環(huán)境侵權(quán)中純經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償問(wèn)題研究[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年06期

6 徐國(guó)平;論船舶油污純經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償范圍[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2005年01期

7 周友軍;;論我國(guó)過(guò)錯(cuò)侵權(quán)的一般條款[J];法學(xué);2007年01期

8 徐海燕;朱辰昊;;純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失賠償制度研究——兼論證券市場(chǎng)中介機(jī)構(gòu)不實(shí)陳述的民事責(zé)任[J];甘肅社會(huì)科學(xué);2008年03期

9 鄭瑞琨;馬華駿;;純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的賠償規(guī)則及其立法思考[J];西部法學(xué)評(píng)論;2010年01期

10 姜戰(zhàn)軍;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的概念[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 楊雪飛;純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失之賠償與控制[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

本文編號(hào)：1900214