【摘要】：責(zé)任競(jìng)合是一項(xiàng)法律制度，而不是客觀現(xiàn)象。責(zé)任競(jìng)合源于法律規(guī)范的并存與沖突。從本質(zhì)上說，責(zé)任競(jìng)合是一項(xiàng)旨在解決各個(gè)并存著的規(guī)范之間沖突的法律制度。違約與侵權(quán)責(zé)任的競(jìng)合問題是責(zé)任競(jìng)合研究領(lǐng)域中的核心內(nèi)容�，F(xiàn)有的責(zé)任競(jìng)合學(xué)說以法條競(jìng)合說、請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合說（包括自由競(jìng)合說與相互影響說）、請(qǐng)求權(quán)規(guī)范競(jìng)合說為代表性學(xué)說，但是這三種學(xué)說均存在一定的缺陷和不足：我國(guó)《合同法》與《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》不存在天然位階，因此沒有法條競(jìng)合說的適用土壤；請(qǐng)求權(quán)自由競(jìng)合說以兩個(gè)請(qǐng)求權(quán)相互獨(dú)立、擇一行使為前提，但是無(wú)法照顧到特殊規(guī)范背后的立法目的，而請(qǐng)求權(quán)相互影響說又使得原本相互獨(dú)立的兩個(gè)請(qǐng)求權(quán)名存實(shí)亡；請(qǐng)求權(quán)規(guī)范競(jìng)合說雖然贊同者日增，但是也存在不足：第一，其對(duì)實(shí)體請(qǐng)求權(quán)概念的改造違背私法體系化精神；第二，在訴訟上使法官的裁判難度劇增，有突襲裁判之嫌；第三，，各個(gè)規(guī)范之間的真正目的難以探求，究竟何為真正規(guī)范目的，持規(guī)范競(jìng)合說的學(xué)者之間也各執(zhí)一詞。 現(xiàn)有學(xué)說的上述缺陷，引發(fā)了我們諸多思考，并激發(fā)了我們對(duì)責(zé)任競(jìng)合制度的更深層次的研究熱情。從我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法條來看，我國(guó)《合同法》第122條首次以立法的形式規(guī)定了責(zé)任競(jìng)合制度，承認(rèn)兩個(gè)獨(dú)立請(qǐng)求權(quán)的并存，并且賦予當(dāng)事人選擇權(quán)，可擇一行使。但是這一做法的缺陷也顯而易見：一是有違特殊立法目的，二是制造訟累。 為彌補(bǔ)上述制度缺陷，單純?cè)趯?shí)體法內(nèi)部尋找路徑較難全面解決責(zé)任問題，如果能夠結(jié)合民事程序法的制度和理論，或許效果更佳。因此我們應(yīng)當(dāng)構(gòu)建如下一套責(zé)任競(jìng)合制度：首先判斷諸規(guī)范中是否存在特殊規(guī)范（或特殊立法目的），若兩者都是一般規(guī)范或都是特殊規(guī)范，則構(gòu)成真正的競(jìng)合，采請(qǐng)求權(quán)自由競(jìng)合理論；若只有其中之一的請(qǐng)求權(quán)涉及到特別規(guī)范，那么該特別規(guī)范排除一般規(guī)范的適用，采禁止競(jìng)合模式。這一構(gòu)想既照顧到了規(guī)范背后的特殊立法目的，又尊重和維護(hù)了民法請(qǐng)求權(quán)體系上的完整。此外，責(zé)任競(jìng)合制度還應(yīng)同時(shí)附以如下配套措施：一是在違約責(zé)任中有條件地引入精神損害賠償制度，以彌補(bǔ)違約責(zé)任賠償范圍不全面之缺陷；二是引入民事訴訟法上的“訴的預(yù)備性合并”制度，以避免請(qǐng)求權(quán)在自由競(jìng)合時(shí)的二次訴訟。
[Abstract]:Liability competing is a legal system, not an objective phenomenon. Liability competition is derived from the coexistence and conflict of legal norms. In essence, liability competition is a legal system aimed at solving the conflict between the coexisting norms. The competition of breach of contract and tort liability is the core content of the research field of liability competition. The doctrine of Coopetition in the doctrine of legal competition, the concurrence of the right of claim (including the theory of free concurrence and mutual influence), the standard of claim of the right of claim is representative theory, but there are some defects and shortcomings in all three theories: there is no natural rank in the contract law of China and the law of tort liability in China, so there is no applicable soil for the coopetition of the law. The right of claim is free and concurrence that the two claims are independent and optional, but it can not take care of the legislative purpose behind the special norms, and the mutual influence of the claim makes the two claims of the original mutually independent. The reform of the concept of the right to the entity is contrary to the spirit of the system of private law; second, it makes the judge's judgment difficulty increasing, and it has the suspicion of raiding the referee; third, the real purpose between the various norms is difficult to seek, what is the true purpose of the standard, and the scholars with the standard of competition are also different.
The above defects of the existing doctrines have caused us a lot of thinking and aroused our deeper research enthusiasm for the system of liability competing. From the current law article of our country, the 122nd article of contract law of our country stipulates the system of liability competing for the first time in the form of legislation, acknowledges the coexistence of the two independent claims and gives the parties the right to choose. It can be exercised selectively. However, the defects of this practice are obvious: first, it violates the purpose of special legislation, and the two is to create litigation fatigue.
In order to make up the defects of the above system, it is difficult to solve the problem of responsibility in the entity law simply. If it can be combined with the system and theory of the civil procedure law, it may be better. Therefore, we should build the following set of liability competing system: first judge whether there are special norms in the norms (or special legislative purposes), if we are in the first place. Both are general norms or are special norms, which constitute a true concurrence and claim the theory of the right of freedom of concurrence. If only one of the claims involves special norms, then the special norm excludes the application of general norms and prohibits the mode of competition. This concept not only takes care of the special legislative purposes behind the norms, but also respects the special legislative purpose behind the standard. In addition, the system of liability competition should also be attached with the following supporting measures: first, it is necessary to introduce the system of mental damage compensation in the liability of breach of contract, in order to make up for the incomplete defects of the liability for breach of contract, and two is to introduce the system of "preparatory merger of litigation" in the civil procedure law. In order to avoid the two lawsuit when the right of claim is free.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 譚甄;邊秋燕;;請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合的若干問題研究[J];研究生法學(xué);1999年03期

2 章曉洪;請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合時(shí)訴訟標(biāo)的識(shí)別標(biāo)準(zhǔn)新思考[J];浙江大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年06期

本文編號(hào)：2144614