【摘要】：中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展之迅猛,使得中國(guó)社會(huì)商業(yè)活動(dòng)空前活躍,市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)活動(dòng)給中國(guó)的民商法提供了前所未有的發(fā)展平臺(tái)。伴隨著個(gè)人財(cái)富的增長(zhǎng),中國(guó)人的權(quán)利意識(shí)從蘇醒到壯大,合同尤其是以個(gè)人消費(fèi)者為主體的民事合同以及形形色色的人身與人格權(quán)的侵權(quán)行為,正是以其與民眾生活最緊密的相關(guān)性,與民眾切身利益最重要的關(guān)聯(lián)性,顯現(xiàn)出其重要的現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。正是基于以上背景,選擇以違約與侵權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合作為論文討論的題目。 違約與侵權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合中最具爭(zhēng)點(diǎn)的就在于其給付內(nèi)容同一,達(dá)到目的一致,但其構(gòu)成要件、賠償范圍等卻因合同與侵權(quán)法的法規(guī)不同而各異,從而導(dǎo)致權(quán)利人舉證責(zé)任難易不同,賠償范圍亦因選擇請(qǐng)求權(quán)不同而有差異,從而直接影響到權(quán)利人請(qǐng)求權(quán)的行使與實(shí)現(xiàn)。我通過(guò)研究三種學(xué)說(shuō)嬗變過(guò)程,認(rèn)為對(duì)競(jìng)合現(xiàn)象的認(rèn)識(shí)已從視其作不正常現(xiàn)象到正常法律現(xiàn)象,且須從有于權(quán)利保護(hù)出發(fā),于理論與實(shí)踐中找到一個(gè)切實(shí)可行的解決之道,能以最簡(jiǎn)捷的手段,消彌兩大法規(guī)帶來(lái)的差異,實(shí)現(xiàn)當(dāng)事人權(quán)利保護(hù)之最佳效果。 本文著重分析了違約與侵權(quán)法規(guī)在權(quán)利保護(hù)上的差異,這是合同法與侵權(quán) WP=4 法在各自目的與原則上的不同所致,因此,盡管發(fā)生違約與侵權(quán)競(jìng)合,但于實(shí)務(wù)中選擇不同請(qǐng)求權(quán)的差別是不可避免的。本文認(rèn)為應(yīng)采用請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合說(shuō)的允許競(jìng)合模式,同時(shí)輔以必要的限制選擇。鑒于請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合時(shí)保護(hù)的是人身、人格權(quán)與財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán),順應(yīng)民法保護(hù)權(quán)利之趨勢(shì),當(dāng)事人可以選擇使用兩個(gè)請(qǐng)求權(quán)當(dāng)屬合理正義,也體現(xiàn)競(jìng)合之存在價(jià)值,以兩個(gè)請(qǐng)求權(quán)選擇行使達(dá)到當(dāng)事人權(quán)利實(shí)現(xiàn)的充分保障。但兩個(gè)請(qǐng)求權(quán)范圍不同而導(dǎo)致的實(shí)現(xiàn)目的不一致,可以考慮用擴(kuò)大責(zé)任范圍加強(qiáng)請(qǐng)求權(quán)的方式解決,減少使用強(qiáng)制選擇的范圍。在分析了近年來(lái)非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害賠償有進(jìn)入合同賠償范圍的現(xiàn)象后,認(rèn)為合同中適用非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害賠償尚有待與合同原則相磨合之過(guò)程,但在違約與侵權(quán)請(qǐng)求權(quán)競(jìng)合時(shí),可以在違約請(qǐng)求權(quán)中包含非財(cái)產(chǎn)損害賠償。該模式從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)看也有合理性。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of China's economy, China's social and commercial activities have become more active than ever, and market economic activities have provided an unprecedented platform for the development of China's civil and commercial law. With the growth of personal wealth, the Chinese people's consciousness of rights from awakening to grow, contracts, especially individual consumers as the main body of civil contracts and all kinds of violations of personal and personality rights, It is the most close correlation with the people's life and the most important relationship with the vital interests of the public, showing its important practical significance. Based on the above background, the author chooses the concurrence of breach of contract and tort claim as the topic of discussion. The most controversial point in the competition between breach of contract and tort claim is that the content of payment is the same and the purpose is the same, but its constituent elements, compensation scope and so on are different because of the different laws and regulations of contract and tort law. As a result, the burden of proof of the obligee is different, and the range of compensation is different because of the choice of claim right, which directly affects the exercise and realization of the right of claim. By studying the evolution process of three kinds of theories, I think that the understanding of the phenomenon of concurrence has changed from the abnormal phenomenon to the normal legal phenomenon, and we must find a feasible solution from the protection of rights and the theory and practice. It can eliminate the difference between the two laws by the simplest means, and realize the best effect of the protection of the parties' rights. This paper analyzes the differences between breach of contract and tort laws in the protection of rights, This is the contract law and tort WP=4 law in their respective purposes and the original As a result of the difference, Therefore, it is inevitable to choose different claims in practice, although breach of contract and infringement are competing. In this paper, we should adopt the permitted concurrence mode of the theory of competing right of claim, and at the same time, complement it with the necessary restricted choice. In view of the fact that the person, personality and property rights are protected when the right of claim is competing, and in accordance with the trend of civil law protection, the parties may choose to use the two claims as reasonable and just, and also reflect the existence value of competing rights. The full protection of the realization of the rights of the parties can be achieved by the exercise of the two right of claim. However, because the scope of two claims is different and the purpose is not the same, we can consider the way of strengthening the right of claim by expanding the scope of responsibility, and reduce the scope of compulsory choice. After analyzing the phenomenon that non-property damage compensation has entered the scope of contract compensation in recent years, it is considered that the application of non-property damage compensation in the contract has yet to be brought into line with the contract principle, but when the claim for breach of contract and the tort claim are competing, Compensation for non-property damage may be included in the right of claim for breach of contract. The model is also reasonable in the long run.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法學(xué)院
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：D923

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 唐軍;產(chǎn)品責(zé)任法律適用研究[D];四川大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2208040