買賣合同中的“交付”及“風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)移”研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-19 11:28
【摘要】：風(fēng)險移轉(zhuǎn)制度在買賣合同中意義重大,其規(guī)制了當(dāng)發(fā)生不可歸責(zé)于合同雙方的風(fēng)險時,由誰承擔(dān)損失的問題,事關(guān)雙方當(dāng)事人的切身利益。歷來有“所有權(quán)主義”和“交付主義”之爭。經(jīng)濟效率要求將意外風(fēng)險導(dǎo)致的損失分配給優(yōu)勢風(fēng)險承擔(dān)人或最廉價保險人。本文旨在通過對買賣合同中“交付”與“風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)移”制度的研究,從一些新角度來重新審視該理論爭議問題,以期揭示《合同法》第142條在實然層面的真實內(nèi)涵,并以制定《民法典》為視角,提出一些切實建議。筆者選取通說認(rèn)為采取“交付主義”的三個典型：德、臺民法典、及《聯(lián)合國國際貨物銷售合同公約》,立足于實踐,深入對比剖析；同時,創(chuàng)造性地還原“交付主義”于其誕生地——德國,運用案例模型考察各立法例在我國的體系兼容性,通過法學(xué)、經(jīng)濟學(xué)、博弈論等多種視角甄別最適合我國的立法模式。本文分四部分論述： 第一部分,相關(guān)概念的界定。筆者從文義解釋、體系解釋、比較法解釋等方面分析“交付”的實然涵義；并簡要對“風(fēng)險”及“風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)”進(jìn)行界定； 第二部分,風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)移立法例。在本部分筆者適當(dāng)略去立法例常識,更多關(guān)注于有所更新或筆者有不同見解的領(lǐng)域,如對《聯(lián)合國國際貨物公約》采用所謂“交付主義”的看法； 第三部分,我國立法模式之爭。筆者分別從解釋論和立法論層面上,對“爭論”詳加分析,將“所有權(quán)主義”和“交付主義”兩陣營進(jìn)行分化,并有選擇地就存異之處闡述一己之見： 第四部分,所有權(quán)主義合理性論證。此處分別從經(jīng)濟學(xué)、法理及體系兼容性三個角度加以論證。筆者不僅創(chuàng)造性地將“交付主義”還原德國,還參考了“新國五條”,對商品房買賣現(xiàn)狀深入剖析,甄別最“本土化”的立法模式。 最后,本文結(jié)論部分,筆者以制定《民法典》為視角,結(jié)合實踐及比較分析得出的結(jié)論提出切實可行的建議。
[Abstract]:The system of risk transfer is of great significance in the contract of sale and purchase. It regulates the problem of who should bear the loss when the risk cannot be attributed to both parties of the contract, which is related to the vital interests of both parties. There has always been a dispute between ownership and delivery. Economic efficiency requires that losses caused by unexpected risks be allocated to the superior risk taker or the cheapest insurer. Through the study of the system of "delivery" and "risk transfer" in the contract of sale and purchase, this paper reexamines the theoretical controversy from some new angles, in order to reveal the true connotation of Article 142 of contract Law at the level of reality. From the angle of formulating the Civil Code, some practical suggestions are put forward. The author chooses three typical models of "delivery doctrine": Germany, Taiwan Civil Code and the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods, which are based on practice and deeply compared and analyzed. In this paper, the author creatively restores the "delivering doctrine" in Germany, and uses the case model to study the compatibility of various legislative cases in our country. Through the perspectives of law, economics and game theory, the author tries to identify the most suitable legislative model for our country. This article is divided into four parts: the first part, the definition of related concepts. The author analyzes the real meaning of "delivery" from the aspects of meaning interpretation, system interpretation and comparative interpretation, and briefly defines "risk" and "risk burden". The second part is the legislation of risk transfer. In this part, the author omits the common sense of legislation and pays more attention to the areas where the legislation has been updated or the author has different opinions, such as the adoption of the so-called "delivering doctrine" to the United Nations International goods Convention. The controversy of legislation pattern in our country. From the angle of explanation theory and legislation theory, the author analyzes the argument in detail, divides the two camps of "ownership" and "delivery", and selectively expounds his own views on the existence of differences: the fourth part, The rational argument of ownership doctrine. Here respectively from the economics, legal theory and system compatibility three angles to prove. The author not only creatively restores "delivery doctrine" to Germany, but also refers to "five articles of New country", deeply analyzes the current situation of commercial housing sale, and discriminates the most "localization" legislative model. Finally, in the conclusion part, the author puts forward some practical suggestions from the angle of making the Civil Code, combining the conclusion of practice and comparative analysis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6
[Abstract]:The system of risk transfer is of great significance in the contract of sale and purchase. It regulates the problem of who should bear the loss when the risk cannot be attributed to both parties of the contract, which is related to the vital interests of both parties. There has always been a dispute between ownership and delivery. Economic efficiency requires that losses caused by unexpected risks be allocated to the superior risk taker or the cheapest insurer. Through the study of the system of "delivery" and "risk transfer" in the contract of sale and purchase, this paper reexamines the theoretical controversy from some new angles, in order to reveal the true connotation of Article 142 of contract Law at the level of reality. From the angle of formulating the Civil Code, some practical suggestions are put forward. The author chooses three typical models of "delivery doctrine": Germany, Taiwan Civil Code and the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods, which are based on practice and deeply compared and analyzed. In this paper, the author creatively restores the "delivering doctrine" in Germany, and uses the case model to study the compatibility of various legislative cases in our country. Through the perspectives of law, economics and game theory, the author tries to identify the most suitable legislative model for our country. This article is divided into four parts: the first part, the definition of related concepts. The author analyzes the real meaning of "delivery" from the aspects of meaning interpretation, system interpretation and comparative interpretation, and briefly defines "risk" and "risk burden". The second part is the legislation of risk transfer. In this part, the author omits the common sense of legislation and pays more attention to the areas where the legislation has been updated or the author has different opinions, such as the adoption of the so-called "delivering doctrine" to the United Nations International goods Convention. The controversy of legislation pattern in our country. From the angle of explanation theory and legislation theory, the author analyzes the argument in detail, divides the two camps of "ownership" and "delivery", and selectively expounds his own views on the existence of differences: the fourth part, The rational argument of ownership doctrine. Here respectively from the economics, legal theory and system compatibility three angles to prove. The author not only creatively restores "delivery doctrine" to Germany, but also refers to "five articles of New country", deeply analyzes the current situation of commercial housing sale, and discriminates the most "localization" legislative model. Finally, in the conclusion part, the author puts forward some practical suggestions from the angle of making the Civil Code, combining the conclusion of practice and comparative analysis.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條
1 王軼;論買賣合同標(biāo)的物毀損、滅失的風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)[J];北京科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);1999年04期
2 趙家儀,陳華庭;我國買賣合同中的“交付”與“風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)移”[J];法商研究;2003年02期
3 翟云嶺;孫得勝;;論所有權(quán)保留[J];法學(xué)家;2010年01期
4 李先波;陳思;;履約中的風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)——以交付為視角[J];時代法學(xué);2009年06期
5 劉廷華;;不可抗力免責(zé)的法經(jīng)濟學(xué)分析[J];經(jīng)濟論壇;2012年07期
6 李灼統(tǒng);論買賣合同的風(fēng)險轉(zhuǎn)移原則[J];紹興文理學(xué)院學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué));2005年02期
7 劉廷華;;買賣合同風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)規(guī)則研究——兼評《商品房買賣合同解釋》第11條[J];中國石油大學(xué)學(xué)報(社會科學(xué)版);2012年01期
8 曹小玲;;大數(shù)定律及其在保險業(yè)中的應(yīng)用[J];天水師范學(xué)院學(xué)報;2010年05期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條
1 汪育玲;論買賣合同標(biāo)的物的風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2010年
2 張淑萍;論房屋買賣合同的風(fēng)險負(fù)擔(dān)[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年
3 蔡U，
本文編號：2250001
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2250001.html
