欺詐侵權(quán)損害賠償責(zé)任研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-08-12 12:54
【摘要】：欺詐,大陸法系又稱為"詐欺",英美法上常稱其為"虛假陳述",是指一方當(dāng)事人故意隱瞞真實情況或者提供虛假情況,誘使對方當(dāng)事人陷入錯誤并作出錯誤意思表示的行為。欺詐作為一種意思表示瑕疵,會導(dǎo)致民事行為被撤銷或確認(rèn)無效的法律效果,產(chǎn)生締約過失損害賠償責(zé)任。當(dāng)欺詐給受欺詐方造成了實際損害后果時,亦具有構(gòu)成侵權(quán)行為,導(dǎo)致侵權(quán)損害賠償責(zé)任的可能性。隨著社會經(jīng)濟的飛速發(fā)展,市場運行的道德風(fēng)險遞增,各種電信欺詐、網(wǎng)絡(luò)欺詐等新型欺詐類型層出不窮,單一的合同法規(guī)制模式在欺詐損害賠償救濟方面的局限逐顯。正確對欺詐所生之損失,尤其是其中的純粹經(jīng)濟損失可否得到我國侵權(quán)法的救濟這個問題進行回答,勢在必行。目前理論界對欺詐侵權(quán)規(guī)制的主要反對點集中在法律體系平衡理論、優(yōu)越法益理論、以及訴訟閘門理論三個方面。這些理論障礙在侵權(quán)法與合同法不斷相互滲透的今天,可以通過侵權(quán)法內(nèi)部價值位階的相對性認(rèn)知、責(zé)任競合下當(dāng)事人選擇訴因理論的運用來加以解決。這既是涉及第三人欺詐時利益救濟之必須,也在訴訟管轄、懲罰性賠償?shù)倪m用、損害賠償?shù)姆秶⑴c商事領(lǐng)域欺詐侵權(quán)規(guī)制相照應(yīng)等方面具有欺詐締約過失損害賠償救濟模式所不具備的優(yōu)勢。通觀世界各國的立法現(xiàn)狀,英美法系國家已將欺詐類型化為一種獨立的侵權(quán)行為,形成了較為成熟的配套規(guī)制規(guī)則;大陸法系的國家和地區(qū)則更傾向于通過侵權(quán)法的一般條款,為欺詐提供侵權(quán)救濟的可能性。我國現(xiàn)行的侵權(quán)法體系對這個問題采取了較為概括、模糊的態(tài)度,導(dǎo)致了理論界各種解釋論眾說紛紜,司法實踐困境重重。應(yīng)該肯定的的是,無論是通過比較解釋、體系解釋、文義解釋,亦或是從締約過失責(zé)任的角度、解釋論的功能角度、司法實踐的需求角度進行解讀,均可確認(rèn)我國現(xiàn)行的侵權(quán)法一般條款并沒有將欺詐所生之純粹經(jīng)濟損失排除在保護范圍之外。此處的一般條款,只是提供一個可能的救濟底線,在具體運用時,需要對欺詐侵權(quán)行為的構(gòu)成要件進行進一步細化的解釋限定,以期符合侵權(quán)法對于利益較之于權(quán)利更嚴(yán)格的保護標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在對欺詐侵權(quán)損害賠償救濟模式進行明確解讀的基礎(chǔ)上,對于欺詐侵權(quán)法與合同法損害賠償救濟模式的協(xié)調(diào),應(yīng)肯定受欺詐方合同撤銷權(quán)與損害賠償請求權(quán)的并存,并賦予其行使時的選擇權(quán)。同時,應(yīng)通過類推解釋的適用,區(qū)分是否撤銷合同兩種情形,對受欺詐方締約過失損害賠償請求權(quán)與侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán)的競合作出不同的解釋和處理。在受欺詐方不請求撤銷合同時,《合同法》第42條所規(guī)定的締約過失損害賠償請求權(quán)與《侵權(quán)法》第6條所規(guī)定的侵權(quán)損害賠償請求權(quán)均可作為訴因,由受欺詐方從中擇一;在受欺詐方請求撤銷合同時,其可在《合同法》第42條、《合同法》第58條、《侵權(quán)法》第6條中選擇一條,作為欺詐損害賠償請求權(quán)的基礎(chǔ),獲得相應(yīng)的救濟。
[Abstract]:Fraud, also known as "fraud" in continental law system, is often referred to as "false statement" in Anglo-American law. It refers to the act of one party intentionally concealing the true situation or providing false information to induce the other party to fall into error and make a false declaration of will. Fraud, as a defective expression of will, will lead to the cancellation or invalidation of the civil act. With the rapid development of social economy, the moral hazard of market operation is increasing, various new types of fraud such as telecommunication fraud, network fraud and so on. The limitations of the single mode of contract law regulation in the remedy of compensation for fraudulent damages are becoming more and more obvious. It is imperative to answer the question of whether the losses caused by fraud, especially the pure economic losses, can be remedied by the tort law of our country. The theory of balance of legal system, the theory of superior legal interests, and the theory of litigation gate are three aspects. These theoretical obstacles can be solved by the relativity cognition of the internal value rank of the tort law and the application of the theory of the parties'choice of cause of action under the concurrence of liabilities, which involves the third party. The necessity of benefit relief in fraud is also in litigation jurisdiction, the application of punitive damages, the scope of damages, and the regulation of fraud infringement in the commercial field. This kind of independent tort has formed a relatively mature set of regulatory rules; the countries and regions of the continental law system are more inclined to provide tort remedies for fraud through the general provisions of the tort law. It should be affirmed that the current general provisions of tort law in China do not give rise to fraud, either through comparative interpretation, systematic interpretation, literal interpretation, or from the perspective of contractual negligence liability, the functional perspective of interpretation theory, or the perspective of judicial practice needs. Pure economic loss is excluded from the scope of protection. The general provisions here only provide a possible remedy baseline, in the specific application, it is necessary to further refine the interpretation of the elements of fraud infringement, in order to meet the tort law for the interests of more stringent protection standards than rights. On the basis of a clear interpretation of the mode of compensation for damages, the coordination of the mode of compensation for damages between the fraudulent tort law and the contract law should affirm the coexistence of the fraudulent party's right to cancel the contract and the claim for damages, and give the fraudulent party the right to choose when exercising it. When the fraudulent party does not request to cancel the contract, the right of claim for damages for negligence under contract stipulated in Article 42 of the Contract Law and the right of claim for damages for tort stipulated in Article 6 of the Tort Law may be deemed as the right of claim for damages for negligence under contract law. The cause of action shall be chosen by the fraudulent party, and when the fraudulent party requests the cancellation of the contract, it may choose one from Article 42 of the Contract Law, Article 58 of the Contract Law and Article 6 of the Tort Law as the basis of the claim for damages for fraud and obtain corresponding relief.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923
，
本文編號：2179114
[Abstract]:Fraud, also known as "fraud" in continental law system, is often referred to as "false statement" in Anglo-American law. It refers to the act of one party intentionally concealing the true situation or providing false information to induce the other party to fall into error and make a false declaration of will. Fraud, as a defective expression of will, will lead to the cancellation or invalidation of the civil act. With the rapid development of social economy, the moral hazard of market operation is increasing, various new types of fraud such as telecommunication fraud, network fraud and so on. The limitations of the single mode of contract law regulation in the remedy of compensation for fraudulent damages are becoming more and more obvious. It is imperative to answer the question of whether the losses caused by fraud, especially the pure economic losses, can be remedied by the tort law of our country. The theory of balance of legal system, the theory of superior legal interests, and the theory of litigation gate are three aspects. These theoretical obstacles can be solved by the relativity cognition of the internal value rank of the tort law and the application of the theory of the parties'choice of cause of action under the concurrence of liabilities, which involves the third party. The necessity of benefit relief in fraud is also in litigation jurisdiction, the application of punitive damages, the scope of damages, and the regulation of fraud infringement in the commercial field. This kind of independent tort has formed a relatively mature set of regulatory rules; the countries and regions of the continental law system are more inclined to provide tort remedies for fraud through the general provisions of the tort law. It should be affirmed that the current general provisions of tort law in China do not give rise to fraud, either through comparative interpretation, systematic interpretation, literal interpretation, or from the perspective of contractual negligence liability, the functional perspective of interpretation theory, or the perspective of judicial practice needs. Pure economic loss is excluded from the scope of protection. The general provisions here only provide a possible remedy baseline, in the specific application, it is necessary to further refine the interpretation of the elements of fraud infringement, in order to meet the tort law for the interests of more stringent protection standards than rights. On the basis of a clear interpretation of the mode of compensation for damages, the coordination of the mode of compensation for damages between the fraudulent tort law and the contract law should affirm the coexistence of the fraudulent party's right to cancel the contract and the claim for damages, and give the fraudulent party the right to choose when exercising it. When the fraudulent party does not request to cancel the contract, the right of claim for damages for negligence under contract stipulated in Article 42 of the Contract Law and the right of claim for damages for tort stipulated in Article 6 of the Tort Law may be deemed as the right of claim for damages for negligence under contract law. The cause of action shall be chosen by the fraudulent party, and when the fraudulent party requests the cancellation of the contract, it may choose one from Article 42 of the Contract Law, Article 58 of the Contract Law and Article 6 of the Tort Law as the basis of the claim for damages for fraud and obtain corresponding relief.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923
，
本文編號：2179114
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2179114.html
