違約歸責(zé)原則比較研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-02 02:25
【摘要】： 違約歸責(zé)原則,是指在進(jìn)行違約行為所致事實(shí)后果的歸屬判斷時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)遵循的原則和基本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。不同的歸責(zé)原則體現(xiàn)了不同的價(jià)值判斷,決定了相應(yīng)的責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件的形成,對(duì)違約責(zé)任制度起著決定性作用。違約歸責(zé)原則的立法選擇十幾年來一直是我國合同法學(xué)界討論的熱點(diǎn),論者的觀點(diǎn)可以劃分為三類:第一類,主張英美法上的嚴(yán)格責(zé)任為最優(yōu)選擇;第二類,主張大陸法上的過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則為最優(yōu)選擇;第三類,認(rèn)為兩大法系的歸責(zé)原則就其實(shí)質(zhì)而言,是一致的。本文贊同第三種觀點(diǎn),并嘗試對(duì)此進(jìn)行有力充分的論證。 本文的結(jié)構(gòu)和研究方法是: 第一章:違約歸責(zé)原則總論。嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)母拍钍侨魏慰茖W(xué)探討的基礎(chǔ)和前提。本章的目的即在于給出有關(guān)違約歸責(zé)原則、免責(zé)事由、過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則、過錯(cuò)推定、嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則、無過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則等諸概念的內(nèi)涵與外延的清晰界限,并以這些概念作為支點(diǎn)和思維工具,為全文體系的構(gòu)建奠定基礎(chǔ)。此外,對(duì)一些關(guān)鍵概念間的聯(lián)系也將進(jìn)行必要的交待。 第二章:具體立法例分析。違約責(zé)任的歸責(zé)原則主要有過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則。過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則在各國的立法或司法實(shí)踐中可以表現(xiàn)為直接的過錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則和過錯(cuò)推定原則,而過錯(cuò)推定原則又可表現(xiàn)為一般過錯(cuò)推定和特殊的過錯(cuò)推定。本章內(nèi)容便選取一般過錯(cuò)推定的典型——德國民法中的違約歸責(zé)原則、特殊過錯(cuò)推定的典型——法國民法中的違約歸責(zé)原則和嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則的典型——英美合同法上的違約歸責(zé)原則進(jìn)行具體分析,以期真正了解兩大違約歸責(zé)原則在立法實(shí)踐中的本來面目。 第三章:在第二章的基礎(chǔ)上,全面比較分析兩大法系的歸責(zé)原則。通過橫向比較各國中心歸責(zé)原則及該中心原則的免責(zé)事由和中心歸責(zé)原則及其它歸責(zé)原則各自的適用范圍,論證了兩大法系歸責(zé)原則在實(shí)質(zhì)上趨于一致。 第四章:分析中國合同法上的違約歸責(zé)原則。認(rèn)為我國合同法同樣規(guī)定了三種歸責(zé)原則:嚴(yán)格責(zé)任、過錯(cuò)責(zé)任、絕對(duì)責(zé)任,而以嚴(yán)格責(zé)任為主。利用第三章的結(jié)論檢討了我國各原則立法上的得失,并提出若干修法建議。
[Abstract]:The principle of liability for breach of contract refers to the principles and basic standards that should be followed when judging the factual consequences of breach of contract. Different imputation principles reflect different value judgments, determine the formation of the corresponding constituent elements of liability, and play a decisive role in the system of liability for breach of contract. The legislative choice of the principle of imputation for breach of contract has been the focus of discussion in the field of contract law in China for more than ten years. The views of commentators can be divided into three categories: first, strict liability in Anglo-American law is the best choice; In the second category, the principle of fault liability in civil law is the best choice, and in the third category, the principle of liability imputation in the two legal systems is identical in essence. This paper agrees with the third point of view and tries to prove it forcefully and fully. The structure and research methods of this paper are as follows: chapter 1: the general theory of the principle of imputation for breach of contract. Rigorous concepts are the basis and premise of any scientific discussion. The purpose of this chapter is to give a clear boundary between the connotation and extension of the concepts of liability for breach of contract, exemption from liability, fault liability, presumption of fault, strict liability, non-fault liability and so on. And take these concepts as fulcrum and thinking tool, lay the foundation for the construction of the full-text system. In addition, the links between some of the key concepts will also be explained as necessary. Chapter two: analysis of specific legislative examples. The principle of imputation of liability for breach of contract mainly includes the principle of fault liability and the principle of strict liability. The principle of fault liability can be expressed as direct principle of fault liability and presumption of fault in the legislation or judicial practice of various countries, and the principle of presumption of fault can be represented as general presumption of fault and special presumption of fault. This chapter selects the typical presumption of general fault-the principle of imputation of breach of contract in German civil law. The typical example of presumption of special fault-the principle of liability for breach of contract in French civil law and the model of principle of strict liability-the principle of liability for breach of contract in the Anglo-American contract Law is analyzed in detail. In order to truly understand the two major default imputation principle in the legislative practice of the original face. Chapter three: on the basis of the second chapter, the author makes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the imputation principle of the two legal systems. Through a horizontal comparison of the central imputation principle and the scope of application of the central imputation principle and other imputation principles, it is proved that the attribution principle of the two legal systems tends to be the same in essence. Chapter four: analyze the principle of imputation of breach of contract in Chinese contract law. The author thinks that the contract law of our country also stipulates three kinds of imputation principles: strict liability, fault liability, absolute liability, and strict liability. Based on the conclusion of Chapter 3, this paper reviews the gains and losses of the principle legislation of our country, and puts forward some suggestions for amending the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D913
本文編號(hào)：2452144
[Abstract]:The principle of liability for breach of contract refers to the principles and basic standards that should be followed when judging the factual consequences of breach of contract. Different imputation principles reflect different value judgments, determine the formation of the corresponding constituent elements of liability, and play a decisive role in the system of liability for breach of contract. The legislative choice of the principle of imputation for breach of contract has been the focus of discussion in the field of contract law in China for more than ten years. The views of commentators can be divided into three categories: first, strict liability in Anglo-American law is the best choice; In the second category, the principle of fault liability in civil law is the best choice, and in the third category, the principle of liability imputation in the two legal systems is identical in essence. This paper agrees with the third point of view and tries to prove it forcefully and fully. The structure and research methods of this paper are as follows: chapter 1: the general theory of the principle of imputation for breach of contract. Rigorous concepts are the basis and premise of any scientific discussion. The purpose of this chapter is to give a clear boundary between the connotation and extension of the concepts of liability for breach of contract, exemption from liability, fault liability, presumption of fault, strict liability, non-fault liability and so on. And take these concepts as fulcrum and thinking tool, lay the foundation for the construction of the full-text system. In addition, the links between some of the key concepts will also be explained as necessary. Chapter two: analysis of specific legislative examples. The principle of imputation of liability for breach of contract mainly includes the principle of fault liability and the principle of strict liability. The principle of fault liability can be expressed as direct principle of fault liability and presumption of fault in the legislation or judicial practice of various countries, and the principle of presumption of fault can be represented as general presumption of fault and special presumption of fault. This chapter selects the typical presumption of general fault-the principle of imputation of breach of contract in German civil law. The typical example of presumption of special fault-the principle of liability for breach of contract in French civil law and the model of principle of strict liability-the principle of liability for breach of contract in the Anglo-American contract Law is analyzed in detail. In order to truly understand the two major default imputation principle in the legislative practice of the original face. Chapter three: on the basis of the second chapter, the author makes a comprehensive comparative analysis of the imputation principle of the two legal systems. Through a horizontal comparison of the central imputation principle and the scope of application of the central imputation principle and other imputation principles, it is proved that the attribution principle of the two legal systems tends to be the same in essence. Chapter four: analyze the principle of imputation of breach of contract in Chinese contract law. The author thinks that the contract law of our country also stipulates three kinds of imputation principles: strict liability, fault liability, absolute liability, and strict liability. Based on the conclusion of Chapter 3, this paper reviews the gains and losses of the principle legislation of our country, and puts forward some suggestions for amending the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D913
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條
1 湯鵬;;試論我國《合同法》違約責(zé)任歸責(zé)原則的規(guī)定[J];中國商界(下半月);2008年04期
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 趙芬;“過錯(cuò)”作為我國違約責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件的合理性分析[D];中國政法大學(xué);2011年
，本文編號(hào)：2452144
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/2452144.html
最近更新
教材專著
