【摘要】：我國(guó)現(xiàn)行民事法律中將"修理、重作、更換"定性為一種民事責(zé)任的承擔(dān)方式,存在謬誤。"修理、重作、更換"不是一個(gè)法律概念,其不具備法律概念應(yīng)有的特性,也無法發(fā)揮法律概念的功能;"修理、重作、更換"不是一種獨(dú)立的請(qǐng)求權(quán),它已被其他請(qǐng)求權(quán)所涵蓋。"修理、重作、更換"不具有民事責(zé)任的強(qiáng)制性。根據(jù)民法典總則"提取公因式"原理,民法典應(yīng)廢棄現(xiàn)行民事立法將"修理、重作、更換"作為一種民事責(zé)任承擔(dān)方式的做法。
[Abstract]:In the current civil law of our country, "repair, rework and replacement" is characterized as a way of assuming civil liability, and there is a fallacy. "repair, rework, replacement" is not a legal concept, it does not have the characteristics of the legal concept, nor can it play the function of the legal concept; "repair, rework, replacement" is not a separate claim, it is covered by other claims. Repair, rework, replacement "Non-civil liability is mandatory." According to the principle of "extracting the common cause" of the general rule of the Civil Code, the Civil Code should abandon the existing civil legislation and take the practice of "repairing, redoing and replacing" as a way of assuming civil liability.
【作者單位】： 全國(guó)哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)規(guī)劃辦公室基金管理處;
【分類號(hào)】：D923
，

本文編號(hào)：2374146