【摘要】：隨著商品經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,合同成為財產(chǎn)流轉(zhuǎn)最重要的形式。第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為時有發(fā)生,加強對合同訂立過程中雙方當事人締約利益的法律保護已成為現(xiàn)代經(jīng)濟發(fā)展的內(nèi)在要求。受“合同相對性規(guī)則”的限制,《合同法》已經(jīng)無法對第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)的行為進行調(diào)整,而《反不正當競爭法》往往只是對不法行為人進行處罰,締約主體的損害很難得到補償,這對于締約人來說是非常不公平的。因此,明確第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為應(yīng)受侵權(quán)法調(diào)整性以及其侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成,有利于完善我國的市場經(jīng)濟體制、規(guī)范市場競爭秩序。對于第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為,理論界在很多方面存在爭議。第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)法律問題已引起國外法學界的足夠重視,利用侵權(quán)法上的制度對這一問題進行調(diào)整也已成為許多國家立法上的共識。然而這一問題在我國法學理論界并未得到足夠的關(guān)注,對該問題的研究也不多見。首先,第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)有哪些行為樣態(tài)?締約當事人在合同締結(jié)階段享有何種權(quán)利或利益?其次,對該種權(quán)利或利益如何進行保護?針對上述問題,本文從以下幾個方面進行了論述。首先,本文通過對第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為進行定義,界定了其行為樣態(tài)。其次,本文對第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為侵害的利益進行了分析,得出這種要約人與受要約人同時遭受的損失屬于純經(jīng)濟利益損失,第三人所侵犯的利益屬于締約利益。再次,本文通過從價值衡量的角度對締約利益進行分析,得出締約利益屬于《侵權(quán)責任法》上“法律所保護的利益”,因而應(yīng)當受到法律的保護。而可適用的法條只有兩個：一個是《侵權(quán)責任法》第2條。這一條是概括了全部侵權(quán)行為的具有最高程度的概括性條款,但由于沒有規(guī)定侵權(quán)責任的構(gòu)成要件,因而不能直接作為裁判依據(jù)。另一個是《侵權(quán)責任法》第6條第1款,雖然規(guī)定了歸責原則,可以作為裁判依據(jù),但該款的保護范圍已經(jīng)寬到不能再寬,從字面理解,并沒有將絕對權(quán)和其他利益區(qū)分丌并給予不同程度的保護,而是同等保護。這是非�？膳碌摹驗闄�(quán)益保護與行為自由之間必須保持適當?shù)钠胶?侵權(quán)法對權(quán)益的保護范圍和保護程度絕非越高越好。由于《侵權(quán)責任法》尚未有權(quán)威的司法解釋出臺,所以對適用該條調(diào)整第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)行為進行解釋上的限制很有必要。因而最后,本文通過限縮解釋的方法,通過對第三人妨礙合同締結(jié)侵權(quán)責任構(gòu)成要件的特殊限制來判定第三人的行為是否構(gòu)成妨礙合同締結(jié)的侵權(quán)行為。
[Abstract]:With the development of commodity economy, contract becomes the most important form of property circulation. The third party obstructs the conclusion of the contract from time to time, and strengthening the legal protection of the contracting interests of both parties in the process of concluding the contract has become the inherent requirement of the modern economic development. Limited by the relative rules of contract, the contract Law has been unable to adjust the behavior of the third party obstructing the conclusion of the contract, while the Anti-unfair Competition Law often only punishes the wrongdoer. It is very unfair for the contracting parties to get compensation for the damage caused by the contracting parties. Therefore, it is helpful to perfect the market economy system and standardize the order of market competition to make it clear that the third party should be regulated by the tort law and its tort liability in order to make sure that the third party hinders the conclusion of the contract. The third party hinders the conclusion of the contract, there are disputes in many aspects in the theoretical circle. The legal problem of the third party hindering the conclusion of a contract has been paid enough attention by the legal circles of foreign countries, and it has become a common understanding in many countries to use the system of tort law to adjust the problem. However, this problem has not been paid enough attention to in the field of legal theory in our country, and the research on it is rare. First, what is the behavior of the third party hindering the conclusion of the contract? What rights or interests do the contracting parties enjoy at the conclusion of the contract? Secondly, how can this right or interest be protected? In view of the above problems, this article has carried on the discussion from the following several aspects. Firstly, this paper defines the behavior of the third party hindering the conclusion of contract. Secondly, this paper analyzes the interests of the third party in hindering the conclusion of the contract, and concludes that the losses suffered by the offeror and the offeree at the same time are pure economic interests losses, and the interests infringed by the third party belong to the contracting interests. Thirdly, through the analysis of contracting interests from the angle of value measurement, this paper concludes that contracting interests belong to the "interests protected by law" in Tort liability Law, and should be protected by law. There are only two applicable articles: one is Section 2 of the Tort liability Act. This article is a summary of all the tort acts with the highest degree of generality, but because there are no provisions on the constitutive elements of tort liability, it can not be used as a direct basis for adjudication. The other is section 6, paragraph 1, of the Tort liability Act, which provides for the principle of imputation and may be used as a basis for adjudication, but the scope of protection in this section is too broad to be extended literally, It does not distinguish between absolute rights and other interests and gives different degrees of protection, but equal protection. This is terrible because the proper balance must be struck between the protection of rights and the freedom of conduct, and the scope and extent of protection of rights and interests in tort law is by no means as high as possible. Since the Tort liability Law has not yet had an authoritative judicial interpretation, it is necessary to explain the restrictions on the application of this article to adjust the third party's behavior of hindering the conclusion of a contract. Finally, through the method of constriction interpretation, this paper determines whether the behavior of the third party constitutes an infringement that hinders the conclusion of the contract through the special limitation of the constitutive requirements of the third party hindering the conclusion of the contract.
【學位授予單位】：南京大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.6;D922.294

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張剛;;試論電子認證機構(gòu)的民事法律責任[J];安康學院學報;2010年05期

2 李勇;;留置權(quán)的行使探析[J];現(xiàn)代農(nóng)業(yè)科技;2010年09期

3 陳春江;;博客傳播侵權(quán)法律責任芻議[J];編輯之友;2011年06期

4 王康;;機動車交通事故共同侵權(quán)損害賠償中的保險責任研究[J];保險研究;2010年04期

5 蘇平,李龍亮;隱私權(quán)及其法律保護[J];重慶工學院學報;2003年01期

6 陳，

本文編號：2264765