【摘要】：居間合同是居間人向委托人報告訂立合同的機會或者提供訂立合同的媒介服務(wù)，委托人支付相應(yīng)報酬的合同。隨著經(jīng)濟高速發(fā)展，居間行業(yè)日漸成熟。任何一個合同最終都落實到合同當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利與義務(wù)，其中義務(wù)尤為重要。居間合同是一種信息服務(wù)合同，告知義務(wù)占據(jù)重要地位，無論是居間人還是委托人，在居間合同履行過程中都占據(jù)一定的信息優(yōu)勢，按理應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)一定的告知義務(wù)。但是我國《合同法》對告知義務(wù)規(guī)定過于抽象、原則，已不能滿足實踐居間合同的需求。有意思的是，學(xué)界對此問題的研究十分匱乏，這或許更凸顯了該問題的棘手。 文章從居間合同中的信息不對稱著手，分析居間合同的本質(zhì)及其告知義務(wù)的事實基礎(chǔ)與法理基礎(chǔ)，著重論述居間合同中告知義務(wù)的主體、對象、內(nèi)容以及違反該義務(wù)的民事責(zé)任，試圖構(gòu)建出一個清晰的居間人、委托人告知義務(wù)體系。除引言外，文章由四部分構(gòu)成： 第一部分，居間合同中的告知義務(wù)之正當(dāng)性。居間合同區(qū)別于其他合同的一個顯著特征在于居間合同中的信息不對稱現(xiàn)象，且該信息不對稱表現(xiàn)為居間人和委托人的雙邊信息不對稱。信息不對稱是居間合同成立的基礎(chǔ)和前提，其可能引發(fā)的雙邊道德風(fēng)險要求居間合同當(dāng)事人承擔(dān)一定的告知義務(wù)。同時，民法中的“帝王條款”誠信原則也滲透到合同法領(lǐng)域，要求居間人和委托人承擔(dān)告知義務(wù)。 第二部分，居間合同中的告知義務(wù)之特殊性。居間合同并非單純的信息服務(wù)合同，具有信息匹配價值。同時，一方面，居間合同中的告知義務(wù)在告知主體、告知內(nèi)容以及違反的民事責(zé)任形式方面不同于其他一般合同中的告知義務(wù)；另一方面，居間合同屬于委托性質(zhì)的合同，可以參照委任性合同的規(guī)定，卻又有別于委任性合同中的委托合同和行紀(jì)合同。 第三部分，，居間合同中的告知義務(wù)之制度架構(gòu)。這部分分別從告知義務(wù)的主體、告知對象、告知內(nèi)容和告知程度進行分析。不同的居間類型中，居間人承擔(dān)告知義務(wù)的對象有所不同，但不論何種情形，只有營業(yè)居間人才承擔(dān)調(diào)查義務(wù)，非營業(yè)居間人只承擔(dān)合理的審查義務(wù)，且兩者都限于“重要事項”。基于《合同法》第425條的擴張解釋，委托人只對居間人承擔(dān)拒絕締約原因的告知義務(wù)。 第四部分，違反居間合同中的告知義務(wù)之民事責(zé)任。圍繞我國《合同法》第425條規(guī)定的居間人責(zé)任，學(xué)界和實務(wù)界分別出現(xiàn)了關(guān)于責(zé)任性質(zhì)、責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件的爭議。筆者認(rèn)為，違反居間合同中的告知義務(wù)的責(zé)任應(yīng)當(dāng)為違約責(zé)任，無論主觀過錯、過失，也不論是否造成實際損害，只要居間人和委托人存在不告知的情形就構(gòu)成違約，應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的損害賠償，但因主觀狀態(tài)的不同，責(zé)任范圍有所差異。
[Abstract]:The intermediary contract is a contract in which the intermediary reports to the client the opportunity to conclude the contract or provides the media service for the conclusion of the contract, and the client pays the corresponding remuneration. With the rapid development of the economy, the intermediary industry is becoming more and more mature. Any contract is finally implemented into the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, among which obligations are particularly important. Intermediary contract is an information service contract, the obligation to inform occupies an important position, both mediators and principals occupy a certain information advantage in the process of performance of the intermediary contract, so it is reasonable to assume a certain obligation to inform. However, the stipulations of obligation to inform in contract Law are too abstract and the principle can no longer meet the needs of the practice of mediating contract. Interestingly, academic research on the issue is scarce, which may underscore the thorny nature of the problem. Starting with the asymmetry of information in the intermediary contract, this paper analyzes the essence of the intermediary contract and the factual and legal basis of the obligation of disclosure, and emphatically discusses the subject and object of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Content and civil liability for breach of this obligation, trying to construct a clear intermediary, the duty of informing the client system. In addition to the introduction, the article consists of four parts: the first part, the legitimacy of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. One of the distinct characteristics of mediating contract is the asymmetry of information in mediating contract, and the information asymmetry is characterized by the bilateral information asymmetry of mediating person and client. Information asymmetry is the foundation and premise of the establishment of intermediary contract, which may lead to bilateral moral hazard, which requires the parties to the intermediary contract to assume a certain obligation to inform. At the same time, the principle of "emperor clause" in civil law also permeates the field of contract law, which requires mediators and clients to undertake the obligation of informing. The second part, the particularity of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Intermediary contract is not a simple information service contract, it has information matching value. At the same time, on the one hand, the obligation of notification in the intermediary contract is different from that in other general contracts in the aspects of the main body, the content of notification and the form of civil liability for breach; On the other hand, the intermediary contract is a contract of the nature of entrustment, which can refer to the stipulations of the contract of appointment, but it is different from the contract of commission and the contract of discipline. The third part, the institutional framework of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. This part analyzes the main body, the object, the content and the degree of disclosure respectively. Among the different types of mediators, the objects of the intermediary's obligation to inform are different, but in any case, only the business mediators bear the duty of investigation, and the non-business mediators only undertake the reasonable obligation of examination. And both are limited to "important matters". Based on the expanded interpretation of Clause 425 of contract Law, the client only assumes the obligation to inform the mediators of the reasons for refusing to conclude the contract. The fourth part, the civil liability for breach of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Concerning the intermediary liability stipulated in Article 425 of the contract Law of our country, there are disputes about the nature of responsibility and the elements of liability in academic and practical circles respectively. The author believes that the liability for breach of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract should be the liability for breach of contract, regardless of subjective fault, negligence, whether or not actual damage is caused, as long as the intermediary and the client do not inform the case constitutes a breach of contract, Should bear the corresponding damages, but due to the different subjective state, the scope of responsibility is different.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(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】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條

1 鄭強;合同法誠實信用原則比較研究[J];比較法研究;2000年01期

2 袁久強 ,崔建遠(yuǎn);論我國民法的公平原則[J];西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;1987年01期

3 肖和保;;保險合同的信息不對稱及其法律調(diào)整——兼論我國保險法的不足及完善[J];湖南社會科學(xué);2006年04期

4 稅兵;;居間合同中的雙邊道德風(fēng)險——以“跳單”現(xiàn)象為例[J];法學(xué);2011年11期

5 董靈;;論合同法誠信原則的經(jīng)濟學(xué)基礎(chǔ)[J];廣東社會科學(xué);2006年05期

6 童國j;;居間合同的效力認(rèn)定及審理問題[J];法律適用;1993年11期

7 曹興權(quán);締約信息義務(wù)理論之比較研究[J];廣西社會科學(xué);2004年10期

8 許凌艷;信息不對稱的民商法保護[J];經(jīng)濟師;2002年06期

9 滕長青;論當(dāng)前房地產(chǎn)居間合同所存在的問題及其對策[J];內(nèi)蒙古石油化工;2004年04期

本文編號：2433324