【摘要】：物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度來源于羅馬法,在主要大陸法系民法典中都有所規(guī)定。我國合同法亦對(duì)此制度予以規(guī)定,但目前理論界對(duì)物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度與附隨義務(wù)違反、締約過失責(zé)任、意思表示錯(cuò)誤制度等關(guān)系的探討比較少,且立法上物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度并沒有系統(tǒng)明確的規(guī)范,特別是社會(huì)生活的豐富以及瑕疵概念內(nèi)涵的外延擴(kuò)大,需對(duì)瑕疵內(nèi)涵進(jìn)行擴(kuò)大解釋。此外,在司法實(shí)踐中,物的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任更是處于尷尬的地位,面臨著適用范圍不清晰、適用頻率不高以及與一般的違約責(zé)任混淆等問題。因此,本文圍繞著對(duì)瑕疵內(nèi)涵的界定、判斷和認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)等內(nèi)容,列舉多個(gè)案例來探討物的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任與附隨義務(wù)違反、意思表示錯(cuò)誤等制度之間的關(guān)系,同時(shí)利用比較法分析的方法,介紹國外相關(guān)做法并加以借鑒。本文寫作目的一方面是對(duì)物的瑕疵內(nèi)涵的界定,對(duì)實(shí)踐中不動(dòng)產(chǎn)瑕疵問題予以解決；另一方面是當(dāng)制度競合時(shí)明晰制度的適用范圍,使當(dāng)事人得以尋找到適當(dāng)?shù)恼?qǐng)求權(quán)基礎(chǔ),在此過程中闡述了瑕疵擔(dān)保制度的特殊價(jià)值,以改變?cè)撝贫仍谒痉▽?shí)務(wù)中被忽視的尷尬處境。 文章分為三個(gè)部分,第一部分對(duì)物的瑕疵擔(dān)保理論做出解讀,包括對(duì)瑕疵概念精確解析,對(duì)物的瑕疵分類和認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的探討,對(duì)瑕疵擔(dān)保制度概念、性質(zhì)與構(gòu)成要件等的介紹,以達(dá)到對(duì)物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度的深入理解進(jìn)而為下文案例分析找好理論依據(jù)。 第二部分重點(diǎn)指出我國司法實(shí)踐中物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度適用中的幾個(gè)問題,對(duì)不動(dòng)產(chǎn)因外界經(jīng)濟(jì)關(guān)系受限,環(huán)境特性缺失,社會(huì)觀念等導(dǎo)致的瑕疵進(jìn)行定性,對(duì)物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度、締約過失制度和附隨義務(wù)違反制度三者關(guān)系的探討,并借鑒德國等國家的相關(guān)規(guī)定和做法,以實(shí)現(xiàn)制度適用范圍與條件的明晰,進(jìn)而有利于法官司法運(yùn)用。 第三部分主要是回應(yīng)文章前言中的問題,在對(duì)上述分析基礎(chǔ)上對(duì)我國物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度的完善提出建議,首先是對(duì)瑕疵概念和瑕疵認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)作出科學(xué)解釋,其次完善瑕疵的分類,最后是明確物的瑕疵擔(dān)保制度與締約過失制度、附隨義務(wù)違反制度之間的關(guān)聯(lián)。
[Abstract]:The guarantee system of defects in rem originates from Roman law and is stipulated in the civil code of the main civil law system. This system is also stipulated in the contract law of our country, but at present, the theoretical circle has little discussion on the relationship between the system of guarantee of defects in rem and the collateral obligation, the liability of fault in conclusion, the system of erroneous expression of will and so on. Moreover, there is no systematic and clear regulation on the guarantee system of defects in legislation, especially the enrichment of social life and the extension of the connotation of the concept of defects, so the connotation of defects should be expanded and interpreted. In addition, in the judicial practice, the imperfection guarantee liability is in an awkward position, facing the problems of unclear scope of application, low frequency of application and confusion with the general liability for breach of contract. Therefore, this paper focuses on the definition of the connotation of defects, judgment and recognition standards, enumerates a number of cases to explore the relationship between the imperfection guarantee liability and the collateral obligation breach, the error of the expression of will and so on. At the same time, using the method of comparative analysis, introduce the relevant practices abroad and draw lessons from them. On the one hand, the purpose of this paper is to define the connotation of imperfection and to solve the immovable property defect in practice. On the other hand, when the system is competing, the scope of application of the system is clear, so that the parties can find the appropriate basis of claim, in this process, the special value of the defect guarantee system is expounded. In order to change the system in judicial practice is ignored in the embarrassing situation. The article is divided into three parts. The first part explains the theory of defect guarantee in rem, including the precise analysis of the concept of defect, the discussion of the classification and identification standard of defect, the introduction of the concept, nature and constitutive elements of the system of guarantee for defects. In order to achieve a deep understanding of the imperfections guarantee system for the following case study to find a good theoretical basis. The second part mainly points out some problems in the application of immovable property guarantee system in our judicial practice, and makes a qualitative analysis of immovable property defects caused by the limitation of external economic relations, the absence of environmental characteristics, and the social concept, etc. This paper probes into the relationship among the system of guarantee of defects in rem, the system of fault in contracting and the system of breach of collateral obligation, and draws lessons from the relevant provisions and practices of Germany and other countries in order to make the scope and conditions of application of the system clear. Then it is beneficial to the judicial application of judges. The third part is mainly in response to the problems in the preface of the article, on the basis of the above analysis of the defects guarantee system in China to improve the improvement of the first is to make a scientific interpretation of the concept of defects and defect identification standards. Secondly, the classification of defects is improved. Finally, the relationship between the system of defect guarantee and fault of contracting and the system of breach of collateral obligation is clarified.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前5條

1 梁慧星;論出賣人的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任[J];比較法研究;1991年03期

2 杜景林;;我國合同法買受人再履行請(qǐng)求權(quán)的不足與完善[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2009年04期

3 杜景林;;現(xiàn)代買賣法瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任制度的定位[J];法商研究;2010年03期

4 杜景林;;企業(yè)買賣中的給付障礙和瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任[J];法學(xué);2011年10期

5 杜景林;;現(xiàn)代買賣法瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任制度的體系建構(gòu)[J];現(xiàn)代法學(xué);2010年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2404962