【摘要】：隨著社會的不斷發(fā)展,社會生活變得復(fù)雜多樣,合同法與侵權(quán)法的雙向擴張,使違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任的競合漸成常態(tài)。面對《民法總則》第186條規(guī)定的擇一請求權(quán),權(quán)利人是依《合同法》提起違約之訴,還是依《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》提起侵權(quán)之訴,或?qū)a(chǎn)生截然不同的法律后果。本文通過對國內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀的梳理,比較和分析學(xué)說中的不同見解。違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競合有三種不同的立法模式,禁止競合模式、限制競合模式、允許競合模式,我國采取允許競合模式。基于此,筆者從裁判文書網(wǎng)搜集了 300多個中院以及高院的有關(guān)責(zé)任競合的案例,根據(jù)損害類型將案例分為人身損害型、財產(chǎn)損害型以及人身和財產(chǎn)交叉損害型進行分類統(tǒng)計分析。通過對搜集案例的整理與分析,發(fā)現(xiàn)我國司法審判中違約與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競合存在支持當(dāng)事人二審改變責(zé)任主張、違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競合的主體不統(tǒng)一等問題;在競合選擇中,當(dāng)事人的主要考量因素為訴訟時效、責(zé)任構(gòu)成要件以及賠償范圍。關(guān)于違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競合的解決方案,在法解釋學(xué)路徑方面,應(yīng)對違約責(zé)任賠償范圍作擴大解釋,將某些特定情形下的精神損害賠償納入其中;對擇一請求權(quán)應(yīng)解釋為對當(dāng)事人在原審中應(yīng)獲得卻沒有獲得損害賠償?shù)脑谏显V時可以變更訴求。在法律創(chuàng)制路徑方面,應(yīng)對責(zé)任競合加以限制,旅游合同、租賃合同、以愉悅精神為目的的合同以及當(dāng)事人約定了違約金的合同只允許當(dāng)事人主張違約責(zé)任;醫(yī)療合同、買賣合同、運輸合同只允許當(dāng)事人主張侵權(quán)責(zé)任;其它不具有典型性或者案情復(fù)雜的合同采取允許競合模式。限制競合模式不但可以節(jié)約訴訟成本、便捷訴訟,也能平衡雙方當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利義務(wù),在司法實踐中相較之前而言也更易操作、更為明確。
[Abstract]:With the continuous development of society, social life becomes complex and diverse, and the two-way expansion of contract law and tort law makes the combination of liability for breach of contract and liability for tort become the norm. In the face of the optional right of claim stipulated in Article 186 of the General principles of Civil Law, the obligee will bring a suit for breach of contract according to the contract Law or a suit for infringement under the Tort liability Law, or will have completely different legal consequences. This paper compares and analyzes the different views in the theory by combing the current research situation at home and abroad. There are three different legislative models of concurrence of liability for breach of contract and liability for tort, including prohibition of concurrence, limitation of concurrence, permission of concurrence, and adoption of permitted coopetition in our country. Based on this, the author collected more than 300 cases of liability concurrence between the intermediate people's courts and the higher courts from the judgment documents Network, and classified the cases into personal injury cases according to the types of damage. The property damage type and the personal and property cross damage type are classified and analyzed. Through the collation and analysis of the collected cases, it is found that the concurrence of breach of contract and tort liability in judicial trial in our country has some problems, such as supporting the parties to change their liability in the second instance, the main body of the concurrence of breach of contract liability and tort liability is not unified, and so on. The main consideration factors of the parties are the limitation of action, the elements of liability and the scope of compensation. With regard to the solution of concurrence between liability for breach of contract and liability for tort, the scope of compensation for breach of contract should be expanded to include the compensation for mental damage under certain circumstances in the path of hermeneutics of law. The right to choose a claim shall be interpreted to mean that a party who is entitled to receive damages in the original trial may change his claim on appeal. With regard to the path of legal creation, it is necessary to limit liability concurrence, travel contract, lease contract, contract for the purpose of pleasure, and contract where the parties agree on liquidated damages, which only allow the parties to claim liability for breach of contract. The contract of sale and purchase, the contract of carriage only allows the parties to claim tort liability; the other contracts which are not typical or complicated adopt the mode of allowing concurrence. The limited concurrence mode can not only save the cost of litigation, facilitate litigation, but also balance the rights and obligations of both parties. In judicial practice, it is easier to operate and clearer than before.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南林業(yè)科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 裘曉音;責(zé)任競合及其解決機制[J];人民司法;2001年10期

2 高魯軍,李迎春;侵權(quán)責(zé)任和違約責(zé)任競合之管轄權(quán)確定——構(gòu)建責(zé)任競合時管轄權(quán)確定的模式[J];山東審判;2005年04期

3 羅方方;徐娜;;我國侵權(quán)責(zé)任和違約責(zé)任競合之選擇[J];商業(yè)文化(上半月);2011年06期

4 李海龍;;論責(zé)任競合、聚合與抗辯[J];現(xiàn)代物業(yè)(中旬刊);2012年04期

5 黃云霞;違約與侵權(quán)責(zé)任的競合[J];山西省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2000年01期

6 邱房貴;論產(chǎn)品責(zé)任競合[J];學(xué)術(shù)論壇;2001年04期

7 彭金發(fā),張再芝;論《合同法》中責(zé)任競合規(guī)則[J];江西社會科學(xué);2003年07期

8 肖磊,祝平衡;試論行政責(zé)任競合[J];衡陽師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(社會科學(xué));2004年01期

9 曹冬子;;我國現(xiàn)行責(zé)任競合規(guī)定的不足與建議[J];科協(xié)論壇(下半月);2008年05期

10 傅巍;;論侵權(quán)責(zé)任與違約責(zé)任競合[J];法制與社會;2008年27期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 沈暉;;違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競合探析[A];中國民商法實務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2001年

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前10條

1 張錦武;淺談責(zé)任競合[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟報;2003年

2 吳U，

本文編號：2187124