本文選題：兩岸 + 民事��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2007年博士論文

【摘要】： 作為臺(tái)灣的法—西南政法大學(xué)研修民商法，受益良多。學(xué)習(xí)期間，親眼目睹大陸市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)律工作者，我有幸在大陸法學(xué)名府—發(fā)展之迅速?gòu)?qiáng)勁，深刻體會(huì)到兩岸同文同種，血濃于水之同胞情深，和發(fā)展兩岸貿(mào)易、文化交流之強(qiáng)烈愿望。而兩岸貿(mào)易和文化交流乃至民間旅游、探親訪友，須臾不離合同，故萌生寫(xiě)作本文之沖動(dòng)，希望在兩岸貿(mào)易發(fā)展、經(jīng)濟(jì)交流以及旅游、探親日益頻繁之時(shí)，通過(guò)比較兩岸違約責(zé)任制度之異同，為兩岸同胞提供處理法律糾紛之參考和指引，期能造福華夏子孫。 比較研究的對(duì)象為臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法典的相關(guān)規(guī)定、大陸民法通則和合同法以及司法解釋、判例和學(xué)者理論見(jiàn)解，間或涉及對(duì)大陸法系和英美法系代表性國(guó)家相關(guān)制度和理論的介紹，以開(kāi)拓視野。 論文分為前言、本論和結(jié)論三部分，除前言外，共十章。第一至六章為基礎(chǔ)編，研究合同的成立、效力，違約責(zé)任制度的歷史沿革，違約責(zé)任制度的一般理論，違約責(zé)任的歸則原則，違約的形態(tài)，免責(zé)事由。第七至九章專就兩岸違約責(zé)任的形式進(jìn)行比較研究。第十章概括全文之研究結(jié)論。 本論部分的主要內(nèi)容如下： 第一章通過(guò)對(duì)合同成立條件和基本原則的比較，吾人得出結(jié)論，大陸合同法和臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法所稱之合同，均為債權(quán)合同。合同之成立，均貫徹平等、自由、公平、誠(chéng)信和公德公益原則。就合同效力而言，合同成立后，債務(wù)人負(fù)有給付義務(wù)、附隨義務(wù)、先合同義務(wù)、后合同義務(wù)和不真正義務(wù)(對(duì)己義務(wù))。合同的履行既是合同效力的集中體現(xiàn)，也是合同消滅的主要原因，而且，明晰合同履行的法律要求，是認(rèn)定違約進(jìn)而確定違約責(zé)任的前提條件。所以研究違約責(zé)任必須先究明合同履行的原則和具體要求。兩岸均認(rèn)可合同履行應(yīng)遵循誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則和全面履行(適當(dāng)履行、正確履行)原則和情事變更原則。此外大陸合同法上尚有實(shí)際履行原則和協(xié)作履行原則。 第二章回顧了違約責(zé)任制度的歷史沿革。古代羅馬法實(shí)行債務(wù)奴隸制度，允許債權(quán)人拘禁不能償債的債務(wù)人，甚至允許債權(quán)人將他們殺死。至《查士丁尼法典》，取消債務(wù)奴隸，確立了違約損害賠償制度。后世法治國(guó)家繼承了羅馬法上違約損害賠償制度并不斷發(fā)展完善，而各國(guó)由于傳統(tǒng)、理論等不同，形成不同的理論和制度。如法國(guó)民法典采取限制賠償原則，德國(guó)民法典采完全賠償原則。英國(guó)普通法將違約行為分為預(yù)期違反合同和實(shí)際違反合同，二者之要件和救濟(jì)手段不同。此外，英國(guó)的衡平法還對(duì)違約提供了兩種救濟(jì)手段，即特定履行(由衡平法院發(fā)布命令，強(qiáng)制合同的一方當(dāng)事人如約履行合同義務(wù)，當(dāng)事人如不依特定命令履行，即構(gòu)成蔑視法庭罪，將被判處監(jiān)禁和罰金)和禁制令。美國(guó)法違約責(zé)任有損害賠償、實(shí)際履行和禁令。另值注意者，美國(guó)判例承認(rèn)在某些情況下，當(dāng)事人對(duì)于因?qū)Ψ竭`約造成的精神痛苦可獲得賠償。這些都對(duì)現(xiàn)代各國(guó)合同法的發(fā)展產(chǎn)生了重大的影響。 第三章違約責(zé)任的一般理論，對(duì)債與責(zé)任、違約責(zé)任與債務(wù)不履行責(zé)任、違約責(zé)任與不當(dāng)?shù)美颠�責(zé)任、違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)，從概念、功能、構(gòu)成要件、適用范圍、法律效力等方面進(jìn)行了比較分析，并對(duì)責(zé)任競(jìng)合的不同學(xué)說(shuō)進(jìn)行了分析探討，結(jié)合大陸和臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的實(shí)際，提出自己的見(jiàn)解。 第四章違約責(zé)任的歸則論原則，通過(guò)對(duì)兩岸的立法和學(xué)者觀點(diǎn)的分析討論，得出如下結(jié)論：大陸合同法對(duì)違約責(zé)任的歸則原則采嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則，臺(tái)灣民法采過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，但于實(shí)務(wù)操作上，借助據(jù)證責(zé)任分配之功能，使二者并無(wú)實(shí)質(zhì)性差別。 第五章違約的形態(tài)與效力，討論了給付不能、給付遲延、不完全給付、給付拒絕四種違約形態(tài)，以及各種違約之責(zé)任。特別是將臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法和理論上之不完全給付與大陸合同法之不適當(dāng)履行進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的分析對(duì)比。 第六章免責(zé)事由，討論了免責(zé)事由的概念，免責(zé)事由與抗辯事由的區(qū)別，并重點(diǎn)分析了不可抗力、定型化免責(zé)條款、債權(quán)人的過(guò)錯(cuò)和情勢(shì)變更的效力。大陸民法通則和合同法專門規(guī)定了不可抗力，不可抗力包括自然災(zāi)害、法令修改和社會(huì)異常事件。在過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則下，意外事故亦是免責(zé)事由，而在嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則下，意外事故不能免責(zé)。大陸合同法規(guī)定，定型化免責(zé)條款生效的前提是不得違反法律的強(qiáng)制性規(guī)定，不得免除造成對(duì)方人身傷害和因故意或者重大過(guò)失造成他人財(cái)產(chǎn)損失的責(zé)任，不得排除對(duì)方的主要權(quán)利。情勢(shì)變更的效力分為第一次效力和第二次效力。第一次效力指?jìng)鶆?wù)人得請(qǐng)求法院增減給付或者變更給付；第二次效力指如果變更合同的方式尚不足以消除顯失公平的后果，或者繼續(xù)履行已不可能，則可采用終止合同或者解除合同的方式來(lái)平衡當(dāng)事人之間的利益。 第七至九章是違約責(zé)任的形式，比較研究了實(shí)際履行、解除合同、違約金、定金和損害賠償五種違約責(zé)任的形式和每種責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件、適用范圍，以及它們的相互關(guān)系。 結(jié)論部分總結(jié)比較研究之結(jié)果，得出以下結(jié)論： 一、整體上均追隨世界潮流，各有所長(zhǎng) 大陸合同法和臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法中與合同有關(guān)規(guī)定相較，各有所長(zhǎng)，而不乏共同之處。舉其熒熒之大者：格式化合同(即附合契約)、締約過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任，兩岸之立法均能因應(yīng)世界潮流予以增訂。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法債編未就電子合同予以規(guī)范，不無(wú)與現(xiàn)今社會(huì)生活脫節(jié)之憾。另有關(guān)預(yù)期違約規(guī)定，亦是臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法所未見(jiàn)。尤以債務(wù)不履行之歸責(zé)原則，大陸合同法率先采用英美法無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則(即嚴(yán)格責(zé)任原則)，此與臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法仍抱持大陸法系傳統(tǒng)的過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，此乃最大差異之處。至于違約責(zé)任與侵權(quán)責(zé)任競(jìng)合，臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法未如大陸合同法定有明文，毋寧是讓諸于學(xué)說(shuō)及實(shí)務(wù)見(jiàn)解，以補(bǔ)法之不足。 二、具體制度 就合同違約責(zé)任具體制度的比較而言，有以下結(jié)論性意見(jiàn)值得強(qiáng)調(diào)： 1．兩岸立法均有違約責(zé)任之規(guī)定，然不容諱言的是臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法債務(wù)不履行責(zé)任，并非專為合同而為規(guī)定，而是一體適用于各種債務(wù)關(guān)系，因而導(dǎo)致同樣內(nèi)容的概念兩岸表述上的差異，此研究和適用時(shí)不得不辨。 2．臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法就債務(wù)不履行系采過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，而非如大陸合同法所采的無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則。為期公允，臺(tái)灣地區(qū)學(xué)者及實(shí)務(wù)咸認(rèn)債權(quán)人就債務(wù)不履行，只須證明債務(wù)人有不履行債務(wù)之事實(shí)即可，若債務(wù)人抗辯債務(wù)不履行不可歸責(zé)于伊者，則應(yīng)由債務(wù)人就不可歸的事由之存在舉證證明，果與采過(guò)錯(cuò)推定原則無(wú)異。實(shí)施結(jié)果，與大陸合同法無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，結(jié)果并無(wú)不同。因此，盡管兩岸就債務(wù)不履行所采行之歸責(zé)原則絕然不同，但由實(shí)務(wù)運(yùn)作之結(jié)果，則無(wú)所軒輊。 3．關(guān)于免責(zé)事由。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法因采過(guò)錯(cuò)歸責(zé)原則，以可歸責(zé)于債務(wù)人之事由存在，為債務(wù)不履行責(zé)任成立之基礎(chǔ)，因之，除因債務(wù)人主觀上就債務(wù)不履行有故意、過(guò)失外，余均屬不能歸責(zé)于債務(wù)人之事由，是免責(zé)事由未見(jiàn)諸于法律明文，原因在此。惟若嚴(yán)格貫徹此一原則，對(duì)債權(quán)人權(quán)益之保護(hù)，亦未盡周到，斯乃有若干例外之規(guī)定予以修正。大陸合同法因采無(wú)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任原則，故而，須就債務(wù)人得為免責(zé)之事由，予以明文規(guī)定。如合同法第117條規(guī)定因不可抗力致合同義務(wù)全部不能履行或者部分不能履行的，免除違約責(zé)任，但當(dāng)事人遲延履行后發(fā)生不可抗力，不能免除責(zé)任。此與臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法就債務(wù)人遲延后，其責(zé)任相對(duì)加重，即令發(fā)生不可抗力事變，亦須負(fù)債務(wù)不履行責(zé)任之規(guī)定不謀而合。 4．大陸合同法將繼續(xù)履行規(guī)定為違約承擔(dān)責(zé)任形式之一。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法并未將繼續(xù)履行列為債務(wù)不履行之一種責(zé)任形式。盡管如此，在臺(tái)灣，債權(quán)人于債務(wù)人不履行債務(wù)后，只要履行尚屬可能，即得依合同要求履行，初不問(wèn)法有無(wú)將繼續(xù)履行列作違約責(zé)任形式而有所不同，例如金錢借貸債務(wù)給付遲延者，債權(quán)人除得要求債務(wù)人給付遲延之損害外，當(dāng)然仍可要求債務(wù)人繼續(xù)履行清償之債務(wù)。準(zhǔn)此以觀，盡管兩岸就繼續(xù)履行是否列為違約責(zé)任之形式規(guī)定不同，惟實(shí)際運(yùn)作結(jié)果，尚無(wú)差異。 5、大陸合同法注重合同當(dāng)事人之協(xié)商與協(xié)作關(guān)系，合同法第60條、61條對(duì)合同訂立、合同內(nèi)容發(fā)生爭(zhēng)議時(shí)之相互協(xié)商有明文規(guī)定。甚而在不履行情事發(fā)生后，亦貫徹了協(xié)力之宗旨，如合同法第118條關(guān)于因不可抗力不能履行合同時(shí)，應(yīng)當(dāng)及時(shí)通知對(duì)方，以減輕可能給對(duì)方造成的損失的規(guī)定，第119條關(guān)于一方違約后，對(duì)方應(yīng)當(dāng)采取適當(dāng)措施防止損失的擴(kuò)大的規(guī)定。這些規(guī)定祛除了非違約方“斷臂即為中彩”，坐等違約方賠償之心理，以擴(kuò)大的損失不能要求賠償之失權(quán)效果，課予非違約方須采取防止損失擴(kuò)大的措施。而且因此一協(xié)力措施，可以減輕違約方的責(zé)任負(fù)擔(dān)，兼顧了雙方權(quán)益。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法第153條第2項(xiàng)及第217第1項(xiàng)之規(guī)定及實(shí)務(wù)之實(shí)踐，可與大陸合同法第60條、61條和119條規(guī)定相當(dāng)。但是，由于臺(tái)灣合同法為民法的一個(gè)部分，以上條文并非在“契約”名下，專為契約而定，但司法實(shí)務(wù)上之見(jiàn)解以為此一規(guī)定，不僅適用于侵權(quán)責(zé)任，即合同違約責(zé)任亦有其適用。 6、大陸合同法將采取補(bǔ)救措施亦列為違約責(zé)任形式之，依其立法意旨，主要是適用在質(zhì)量不符合約定之情況。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法，并無(wú)類此之直接明文，然2000年5月5日修正民法第227條之規(guī)定，與此意旨相同，堪相比擬。 三、立法形式 就立法形式而言，大陸合同法作為合同之獨(dú)立立法，突顯出在工商社會(huì)里合同之重要性與必要性，而且適用方便。臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法雖有“契約”之專門規(guī)定，除違約金責(zé)任、定金責(zé)任外，兼及合同的解除與終止，雙務(wù)合同之同時(shí)履行抗辯權(quán)、不安抗辯權(quán)，及第三人負(fù)擔(dān)合同、利益第三人合同等規(guī)范。惟就包括違約在內(nèi)之債務(wù)不履行，其不履行之態(tài)樣，其責(zé)任的構(gòu)成，則委諸之“債之效力”章節(jié)中為共通之規(guī)定。換言之，就關(guān)于債務(wù)不履行之態(tài)樣與責(zé)任之構(gòu)成，不惟合同有其適用，合同以外之債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系，例如不當(dāng)?shù)美�、無(wú)因管理等，均有其適用。就債權(quán)債務(wù)關(guān)系發(fā)生原因，不止合同一途，尚有不當(dāng)?shù)美�、侵�?quán)行為、無(wú)因管理等，而債務(wù)不履行之構(gòu)成與責(zé)任，作一抽象概括之規(guī)范，以期適用于各種債之關(guān)系，可以避免就共通事項(xiàng)，卻必須于各種債之關(guān)系作專門之立法，顯現(xiàn)其適用之方便性。但就規(guī)范明確，易于掌握和適用方便言，則遜于大陸?yīng)毩⒅贤ā?盡管兩岸關(guān)于合同之立法，各有優(yōu)點(diǎn)長(zhǎng)處，且規(guī)范之內(nèi)容，亦不盡相同，然而，違約責(zé)任作為擔(dān)保合同履行之手段則是共同一致的。即令若干合同法上之規(guī)定，為臺(tái)灣地區(qū)民法所未有明文，惟通過(guò)法的解釋及實(shí)務(wù)運(yùn)作補(bǔ)充，差異性已減至最低，再若有差別，非不得以大陸合同法之規(guī)定，當(dāng)作法理加以援用，以徹底消除差異。如兩岸合同之歸責(zé)原則之立法絕然有別，但通過(guò)臺(tái)灣學(xué)者見(jiàn)解與實(shí)務(wù)運(yùn)作，將舉證責(zé)任反置，，卻亦無(wú)遜于嚴(yán)格責(zé)任之立法。 概而言之，大陸合同法的立法規(guī)范，雖說(shuō)不上“精”、“簡(jiǎn)”，但規(guī)定明確、易懂是其優(yōu)點(diǎn)，就法律適用之方便性，法律推廣之普通性，起了很大的作用。相較于臺(tái)灣地區(qū)的民法，無(wú)論是否與合同相關(guān)之立法，精簡(jiǎn)有余，但艱晦難懂，以法律頒行貴在適用而言，毋寧以大陸合同法之立法模式較優(yōu)。再就實(shí)質(zhì)而論，大陸合同法就合同之權(quán)義關(guān)系，不再刻板建立請(qǐng)求及被請(qǐng)求之對(duì)立模式上，反而，更加強(qiáng)調(diào)協(xié)商、協(xié)作、協(xié)力的必要，彰顯了人類互助之天性，亦體現(xiàn)合同法平等、公平之立法原則，堪值借鏡。
[Abstract]:As the law of Taiwan, it has benefited a lot from the study of civil and commercial law of Southwest University of Political Science and Law. During my study, I have been able to witness the mainland market economic law workers, and I have been fortunate to have the rapid and strong development of the mainland jurisprudence. I have deeply felt the same love between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, the blood is thicker than the water, and the strong desire for the development of cross-strait trade and cultural exchange. Two Bank trade, cultural exchange and even folk tourism, visiting relatives and friends, and not leaving the contract for a moment, therefore have the impulse to produce writing this article, and hope to provide reference and guidance for the cross straits compatriots to deal with legal disputes by comparing the similarities and differences of the system of breach of contract between the two sides of the Straits. Fu Hua summer son and grandson.
The object of the comparative study is the relevant provisions of the civil code of the Taiwan region, the general principles of civil law and the law of contract and the judicial interpretation, the jurisprudence and the theoretical views of scholars, and the introduction of the relevant systems and theories of the representative countries of the continental law system and the Anglo American legal system, in order to open up the field of vision.
The thesis is divided into the preface, the three part of this theory and the conclusion. In addition to the preface, there are ten chapters. The first to the six chapter is the basis for the study of the establishment, effect, the historical evolution of the system of liability for breach of contract, the general theory of the liability for breach of contract, the principle of the liability for breach of contract, the form of breach of contract, the cause of disclaimer, and the form of the breach of contract between the two sides of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. The tenth chapter summarizes the conclusions of the study.
The main contents of this part are as follows:
The first chapter, through the comparison of the conditions and basic principles of the establishment of the contract, draws the conclusion that both the contract law and the contract referred to in the civil law of Taiwan are obligatory contracts. The principle of equality, freedom, fairness, integrity and public welfare is carried out in the establishment of the contract. Obligations, first contract obligations, post contract obligations and untrue obligations (to their own obligations). The performance of the contract is not only the concentrated expression of the validity of the contract, but also the main reason for the elimination of the contract. Moreover, it is the prerequisite to identify the legal requirements of the performance of the contract and to determine the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the study of the liability for breach of contract must first clarify the performance of the contract. Both sides agree that the performance of the contract should follow the principle of honesty and credit and the principle of full performance (proper performance, correct performance) and the principle of change of circumstances. In addition, there are still practical principles and cooperative performance principles on the mainland contract law.
The second chapter reviews the historical evolution of the system of liability for breach of contract. The ancient Rome law implements the debt slavery system, allowing the creditors to detain the debtors who cannot pay the debt, and even allow the creditors to kill them. To < the Charles code >, the cancellation of the debt slaves, the system of damages for breach of contract has been established. After the rule of law, the country of the rule of law inherited the law of breach of contract in Rome. The damage compensation system has been developed and perfected, and different countries form different theories and systems due to different traditions and theories. For example, the legal national code adopts the principle of limited compensation, the German civil code adopts the principle of complete compensation. The British ordinary law divides the breach of contract into the expected breach of contract and the actual violation of the contract, the two elements and relief means are not. In addition, the British equity law also provides two means of remedies for breach of contract, that is, a specific performance (by an equitable court issued by an equitable court, a party to which a contract is forced to perform a contractual obligation, if the party is not performed according to a particular order, that constitutes a crime of contempt of a court, a sentence of imprisonment and a fine) and an injunction. Compensation, actual performance and injunction. Other values, American jurisprudence recognizes that in some cases, the parties can obtain compensation for the mental suffering caused by the other party's breach of contract. These all have a significant impact on the development of the modern contract law.
The general theory of liability for breach of contract in the third chapter is a comparative analysis of the debt and responsibility, liability for breach of contract and the liability for non performance of debt, liability for breach of contract and the liability for return of improper enrichment, liability for breach of contract and liability for infringement, from the concept, function, constitutive requirements, scope of application and legal effect, and the analysis and discussion of the different doctrines of liability competing. In the light of the reality of the mainland and Taiwan, I put forward my own views.
The fourth chapter is the principle of return on the liability for breach of contract. Through the analysis and discussion of the legislative and scholars' views of the two sides, the following conclusions are drawn: the continental contract law adopts the principle of strict liability for the principle of the liability for breach of contract, the principle of fault liability in the civil law of Taiwan, but in practice, the two are not substantial by the function of the distribution of the evidence liability. Difference.
The fifth chapter is the form and effect of breach of contract. It discusses the failure of payment, payment delay, incomplete payment, and refusal of the four forms of breach of contract, and the responsibilities of various kinds of breach of contract. In particular, it makes a detailed analysis and comparison of the improper performance of the civil law and the incomplete payment in Taiwan and the continental contract law in the civil law and theory.
The sixth chapter disclaimer, discusses the concept of disclaimer, the difference between the disclaimer and the defense, and focuses on the analysis of the force majeure, the stereotyped exemption clause, the creditor's fault and the effect of the change of the situation. The general principles and contract law of the civil law of the mainland of China include the force majeure, and the force majeure includes natural disasters, decrees amending and social differences. Under the principle of liability for fault, an accident is also the cause of disclaimer. Under the principle of strict liability, an accident cannot be exempt from liability. The continental contract law stipulates that the prerequisite for the entry into force of the finalized exemption clause is not to violate the mandatory provisions of the law, and may not be exempted from the personal injury to the other party and caused by deliberate or major negligence. The liability for loss of production shall not exclude the main rights of the other party. The effect of the change of situation is divided into the first effect and the second effect. The first effect means that the debtor must ask the court to add or reduce the payment or change the payment; the second effect means that if the way to change the contract is not enough to eliminate the consequences of the explicit fairness, or to continue to perform it no longer. It may be possible to balance the interests of the parties by terminating the contract or cancelling the contract.
The seventh to nine chapter is the form of liability for breach of contract. It compares the forms of the five liability for breach of contract, the termination of the contract, the breach of contract, the deposit and the damages, and the elements of each liability, the scope of application and their relations.
The conclusion summarizes the results of the comparative study and draws the following conclusions:
One, on the whole, they follow the world trend and have their own strengths.
The contract law of the mainland and the civil law in the Taiwan region are different from the relevant provisions of the contract. They have their own strengths and common features. The large flicker: the formatted contract (that is, the attachment contract), the fault liability of the contracting parties, and the legislation of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits should be added to the world trend. The civil law debt in Taiwan has not been standardized on the electronic contract. This is a regret for the disjointed life of the present social life. Besides, the provisions of the expected breach of contract are also not seen in the civil law of the Taiwan region. In particular, the principle of liability for non performance of debt is the principle that the continental contract law takes the lead in the principle of no fault liability of the Anglo American Law (i.e. the principle of strict liability), and this is the biggest difference between the civil law of the Taiwan region and the principle of fault liability in the traditional law of the large land law system. As for the concurrence of the liability for breach of contract and the liability for tort, the civil law of the Taiwan region is not as clear as the statutory law of the mainland contract, and it is rather to let the doctrines and practical views be made to the deficiency of the supplement.
Two, specific system
In comparison with the specific system of liability for breach of contract, the following concluding observations deserve to be stressed:
1. the legislation of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits has the stipulations of the liability for breach of contract. However, it is not allowed to say that the liability of civil liability in Taiwan is not obligated, not specifically for the contract, but it is one of the various debt relations, which leads to the differences between the two sides of the same content. This study and application have to be identified.
2. the civil law of the Taiwan region takes the principle of fault liability for the non performance of debt, rather than the principle of no fault liability adopted by the continental contract law. For a period of time, the Taiwan regional scholar and the practice of recognizing the creditor will not fulfill the debt. It is only necessary to prove that the debtor has the fact that the debt is not fulfilled, and if the debtor's debtor's debtor is not fulfilled, it is not imputable. There is no difference between the result and the principle of fault liability of the mainland contract law, the result is not different from the principle of fault liability of the mainland contract law.
3. on the cause of disclaimer. In Taiwan, the civil law of the region, due to the principle of fault liability, is responsible for the existence of the debtor, which is the basis for the non performance of liability. In addition, the liability of the debtor is not attributable to the obligation of the debtor except that the debtor is subjective on the debt, and it is not unaccountable to the law. The reason is that, if the principle is strictly carried out and the protection of the rights and interests of the creditor is not enough, we have some exceptions to amend it. The continental contract law is based on the principle of no fault liability. Therefore, it is necessary to stipulate clearly that the debtor should be exempt from the responsibility of the debtor. For example, the 117th provisions of the same law stipulate the whole contract obligation due to force majeure. If the party is unable to perform or partly fails to perform the liability for breach of contract, the party shall have the force majeure and cannot be exempt from the liability after the delay of the performance of the party, and the liability of the civil law in the Taiwan area is relatively heavier after the delay of the debtor, that is, the force majeure event will occur, and the liability for the non performance of liability is also required to coincide.
The contract law of the 4. continent will continue to perform one of the forms of liability for breach of contract. Civil law in the Taiwan region does not continue to perform as one of the forms of liability for non performance of the debt. Nevertheless, in Taiwan, after the debtor is not performing the debt, the creditor may be fulfilled as long as it is possible, that is, according to the requirements of the contract, and at first does not ask whether the law will continue. It is different from the form of a liability for breach of contract, such as the delay in the payment of a money loan debt. In addition to requiring the debtor's delay in payment, the creditor may, of course, require the debtor to continue to fulfill the debt. As a result, there is no difference.
5, the contract law of the mainland pays attention to the negotiation and cooperation relationship between the parties of the contract, the sixtieth of the contract law, the 61 articles of the contract and the mutual negotiation of the contract when the content of the contract is disputed. Even after the failure to carry out the situation, the purpose of the cooperation is also carried out, such as the 118th article of the contract law, when the force majeure is not performed, it should be timely. The other is to inform the other party to alleviate the loss that may be caused by the other party. After the 119th party shall take appropriate measures to prevent the expansion of the loss after a party's breach of contract, these Provisions dispel the psychology of the non breaching party, "a broken arm is a lottery", and wait for the compensation of the default party to compensate for the loss of the right effect. The non defaulting party must take measures to prevent the expansion of the loss. Moreover, the joint measures can reduce the liability burden of the party in breach of contract and take into account the rights and interests of the two parties. The 153rd provisions and practice of the second and 217 first items of the civil law of the Taiwan region may be equivalent to the sixtieth, 61 and 119 provisions of the continental contract law. But, due to the contract of the Taiwan As a part of the civil law, the above provisions are not under the name of the "contract", which are specially made for the contract, but the opinions on the judicial practice are not only applicable to the tort liability, but also the liability for breach of contract.
6, the mainland contract law will take remedial measures as the form of liability for breach of contract. In accordance with its legislative intention, it is mainly applicable to the circumstances of the non conformity of the quality. The civil law of the Taiwan region has no direct text like this, but in May 5, 2000, the provisions of the amendment to the 227th article of the civil law and the purpose of this amendment
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2007
【分類號(hào)】：D913

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條

1 胡尚周;民事執(zhí)行中的財(cái)產(chǎn)調(diào)查制度研究[D];湘潭大學(xué);2011年

2 鄭偉;論違約金的懲罰性與補(bǔ)償性[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2011年

3 李向鋒;合同違約解除之損失賠償研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2009年

4 賴家明;論違約金的調(diào)整[D];西南大學(xué);2010年

5 宗美黛;股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓合同解除問(wèn)題的分析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1994369