本文選題：強(qiáng)制締約　切入點(diǎn)：適用范圍　出處：《吉林大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：強(qiáng)制締約是訂立合同的特殊程序。強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍究竟有多大,不同學(xué)者的認(rèn)識(shí)有很大的差別,存在著強(qiáng)制締約適用范圍的廣義說(shuō)和狹義說(shuō)。強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍的爭(zhēng)議集中表現(xiàn)為兩個(gè)焦點(diǎn):一是,優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)是否屬于強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍;二是,基于平等權(quán)、反對(duì)締約歧視能否產(chǎn)生強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù)。優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)是否屬于強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍的問(wèn)題,應(yīng)當(dāng)回歸優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)的權(quán)利性質(zhì)上考慮,優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)是形成權(quán),并沒(méi)有強(qiáng)制締約制度的適用余地和適用必要。目前,司法裁判將優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)定性為附強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù)的請(qǐng)求權(quán),這實(shí)際上是對(duì)最高人民法院相關(guān)司法解釋理解與適用的照搬,不足以否定理論界關(guān)于優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)是形成權(quán)的通說(shuō)見(jiàn)解。形成權(quán)的路徑可以解決優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)的保護(hù)問(wèn)題,將優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)納入強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍,不符合強(qiáng)制締約制度本身的價(jià)值追求�；谄降葯�(quán)、反對(duì)締約歧視不能產(chǎn)生強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù)。首先,我國(guó)學(xué)者關(guān)于強(qiáng)制締約適用范圍的認(rèn)識(shí)上很少將該種類(lèi)型納入強(qiáng)制締約范圍;其次,我國(guó)司法實(shí)踐中也沒(méi)有關(guān)于平等權(quán)、反對(duì)締約歧視與強(qiáng)制締約關(guān)系的相關(guān)案例。作為合同成立的特殊形式,強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍的準(zhǔn)確界定,必須回歸到合同法“契約自由”的基本價(jià)值立場(chǎng)以及強(qiáng)制締約制度本身的價(jià)值立場(chǎng)上。由于強(qiáng)制締約制度是對(duì)契約自由原則的最大干預(yù),因此必須嚴(yán)格限制強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍。強(qiáng)制締約制度價(jià)值在于維護(hù)社會(huì)公共利益、保護(hù)弱勢(shì)群體以及保障公民的生命、身體和健康的基本權(quán)益,對(duì)是否納入強(qiáng)制締約適用范圍的判斷必須符合強(qiáng)制締約制度的上述價(jià)值立場(chǎng)�；谝陨戏治�,強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍應(yīng)當(dāng)采狹義說(shuō)。第一,強(qiáng)制締約必須基于法律的明確規(guī)定,間接強(qiáng)制締約不應(yīng)屬于強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍。第二,強(qiáng)制締約主要解決的是合同訂立問(wèn)題,對(duì)于優(yōu)先購(gòu)買(mǎi)權(quán)、平等權(quán)等通過(guò)其他理論可以解決的問(wèn)題,不必納入強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍。第三,對(duì)強(qiáng)制締約適用范圍的判斷必須回歸契約自由以及強(qiáng)制締約制度本身的價(jià)值立場(chǎng)。最后,從我國(guó)現(xiàn)行有關(guān)的法律法規(guī)的內(nèi)容上看,強(qiáng)制締約的適用范圍應(yīng)當(dāng)是以下四種情況:1.公共承運(yùn)人負(fù)擔(dān)的強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù);2.供應(yīng)電、水、氣、熱力等社會(huì)必需品的企業(yè)所負(fù)有的強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù);3.執(zhí)業(yè)醫(yī)師和醫(yī)院的強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù);4.責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中的強(qiáng)制締約義務(wù)。
[Abstract]:Compulsory contracting is a special procedure for concluding a contract. There is a broad and narrow view of the scope of application of compulsory contracting. The controversy about the scope of application of compulsory contracting mainly shows two focal points: one is whether the right of preemption belongs to the scope of application of compulsory contracting; the other is based on the right of equality. The question of whether the right of preemption belongs to the scope of application of compulsory contracting should be considered in the nature of the right of preemption, which is the right of formation. There is no room and necessity for the application of the compulsory contracting system. At present, the judicial decision characterizes the preemptive right as the claim with compulsory contracting obligations, which is in fact a copy of the understanding and application of the relevant judicial interpretation of the Supreme people's Court. The path of formation right can solve the protection problem of preemption right and bring the preemptive right into the scope of application of compulsory contracting. It is not in accordance with the value pursuit of the compulsory contracting system itself. Based on the right of equality, opposing the contracting discrimination can not produce the compulsory contracting obligation. Firstly, the understanding of the scope of application of compulsory contracting rarely brings this type into the scope of compulsory contracting. Secondly, there are no relevant cases on the right of equality, against the relationship between contracting discrimination and compulsory contracting in our judicial practice. As a special form of contract formation, the scope of application of compulsory contracting is precisely defined. We must return to the basic value stand of "freedom of contract" of contract law and the value stand of the system of compulsory contracting, because the system of compulsory contracting is the biggest interference to the principle of freedom of contract. Therefore, the scope of application of compulsory contracting must be strictly limited. The value of compulsory contracting lies in safeguarding the public interest, protecting the vulnerable groups and safeguarding the basic rights and interests of citizens' life, body and health. Based on the above analysis, the scope of application of compulsory contracting should be narrowly defined. First, compulsory contracting must be based on the explicit provisions of the law. Indirect compulsory contracting should not belong to the scope of application of compulsory contracting. Second, compulsory contracting mainly solves the problem of contract formation, which can be solved by other theories, such as preemption right, equality right, etc. Third, the judgment of the scope of application of compulsory contracting must be returned to the freedom of contract and the value position of the compulsory contracting system. Finally, from the content of the relevant laws and regulations in our country, The scope of application of compulsory contracting shall be as follows: 1. Compulsory contracting obligations of the common carrier 2. Supply of electricity, water and gas, Compulsory contracting obligations of medical practitioners and hospitals. 4. Compulsory contracting obligations in liability insurance.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 崔建遠(yuǎn);;強(qiáng)制締約及其中國(guó)化[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)戰(zhàn)線;2006年05期

2 金瑞琴;;淺議強(qiáng)制締約制度[J];河北廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年06期

3 曹寧;;淺析強(qiáng)制締約[J];社會(huì)科學(xué)論壇(學(xué)術(shù)研究卷);2008年06期

4 Mark Voigtmann;;如何對(duì)付“強(qiáng)制締約”合同[J];軟件;2009年01期

5 李銀鳳;;論強(qiáng)制締約制度[J];知識(shí)經(jīng)濟(jì);2012年12期

6 李志明,張敏純;強(qiáng)制締約制度淺探[J];湖南行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2003年03期

7 易軍;寧紅麗;;強(qiáng)制締約制度研究——兼論近代民法的嬗變與革新[J];法學(xué)家;2003年03期

8 蔣學(xué)躍;論強(qiáng)制締約[J];杭州商學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年02期

9 郎克研;強(qiáng)制締約的適用分析[J];重慶交通學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年03期

10 楊陳慧,陳陽(yáng),李明江;強(qiáng)制締約制度問(wèn)題研究[J];臺(tái)聲.新視角;2005年01期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 姜叢華;盧方舟;;論強(qiáng)制締約[A];第三屆中國(guó)律師論壇論文集（實(shí)務(wù)卷）[C];2003年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 浙江省寧波市鄞州區(qū)人民法院 郭敬波;“病人被轉(zhuǎn)院”凸現(xiàn)醫(yī)護(hù)擔(dān)責(zé)過(guò)重[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

2 中國(guó)人民大學(xué)民商事法律科學(xué)研究中心副主任、教授 楊立新;論強(qiáng)制交易行為的侵權(quán)責(zé)任[N];法治快報(bào);2004年

3 胡坤;承租人能否請(qǐng)求與出租人強(qiáng)制締約[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 莫飛燕;強(qiáng)制締約之理論與制度論析[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2008年

2 崔洋;強(qiáng)制締約適用的立法問(wèn)題研究[D];大連理工大學(xué);2010年

3 劉明;強(qiáng)制締約法律問(wèn)題研究[D];鄭州大學(xué);2009年

4 尹瑞峰;論我國(guó)強(qiáng)制締約制度[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

5 支明媛;論強(qiáng)制締約的適用規(guī)則[D];東北師范大學(xué);2012年

6 王冰;強(qiáng)制締約適用范圍研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

7 牛穎;朱蘭英訴民航拒載殘疾人案法律分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2015年

8 張新;論預(yù)約[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

9 王馳;論我國(guó)強(qiáng)制締約制度的完善[D];沈陽(yáng)師范大學(xué);2016年

10 崔婉瑩;網(wǎng)絡(luò)約車(chē)合同問(wèn)題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

，

本文編號(hào)：1692167