本文選題：純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失 + 侵權(quán)法救濟(jì)��； 參考：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：近代民法是以權(quán)利為中心構(gòu)建起的龐大體系，個人權(quán)利的保護(hù)便成為了侵權(quán)法所保護(hù)的焦點(diǎn)。但市民社會的復(fù)雜利益形態(tài)，已早不是物權(quán)、知識產(chǎn)權(quán)等領(lǐng)域可以完全覆蓋。純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)利益正是這復(fù)雜形態(tài)中的一類，本文的關(guān)注點(diǎn)便集中于純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的救濟(jì)問題。 本文分為五個部分，第一部分是純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的基礎(chǔ)理論。主要闡述純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的概念、特征、主要類型。試圖通過對基礎(chǔ)理論的分析,以擺脫純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失模糊不清的形象，并作出正確的定位。 第二部分是對純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失賠償與否的既有因素分析。筆者將這分為兩部分，首先立足于自由與安全這對價值矛盾體來看待純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的救濟(jì)問題，其次從技術(shù)性角度上思考在法院與當(dāng)事人之間的“訴訟閘門”、在行為人與受害人之間的預(yù)見性規(guī)則。此部分的分析為下文賠償方案的提出奠定基礎(chǔ)。 第三部分是純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的救濟(jì)制度的比較法考察。重點(diǎn)考察了法國法上的確定性損害與直接因果關(guān)系制度、德國法上獨(dú)特的“三小段”規(guī)則、日本的不法性條款、以及英美法系特殊的判例救濟(jì)制度。 第四部分是對各國純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的救濟(jì)制度進(jìn)行的反思。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)主要存在三種救濟(jì)道路，一種是以法、日為代表，執(zhí)著于侵權(quán)責(zé)任的構(gòu)成要件，通過對構(gòu)成要件中的因果關(guān)系或違法性創(chuàng)新化運(yùn)用來實(shí)現(xiàn)救濟(jì)；一種為以德國為代表，執(zhí)著于固有立法，通過對現(xiàn)有立法進(jìn)行解釋來進(jìn)行救濟(jì)；一種為以英美法系為代表，執(zhí)著于判例中考量因素進(jìn)行救濟(jì)。 第五部分是在我國侵權(quán)法下對純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失救濟(jì)制度進(jìn)行重新分析。在相對寬松的救濟(jì)環(huán)境下，通過積極適用因果關(guān)系等構(gòu)成要件，吸收動態(tài)參考系的成果，使得純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失能夠在相對確定條件之下得到救濟(jì)，既保證受害人的權(quán)益，，也保護(hù)行為人的自由。
[Abstract]:Modern civil law is a huge system centered on rights, and the protection of individual rights has become the focus of tort law.However, the complex interest form of civil society has long been not real right, intellectual property and other fields can be completely covered.Pure economic interest is just one of these complex forms. The focus of this paper is on the relief of pure economic loss.This paper is divided into five parts, the first part is the basic theory of pure economic loss.This paper mainly expounds the concept, characteristics and main types of pure economic loss.Through the analysis of basic theory, this paper tries to get rid of the vague image of pure economic loss and make a correct position.The second part is the analysis of the existing factors of compensation for pure economic losses.The author divides this into two parts. Firstly, based on the contradiction of value between freedom and security, the author views the relief problem of pure economic loss. Secondly, from the technical point of view, I think about the "action gate" between the court and the parties.Rules of predictability between the perpetrator and the victim.This part of the analysis for the following compensation scheme to lay the foundation.The third part is the comparative study of the relief system of pure economic loss.It focuses on the system of deterministic damage and direct causality in French law, the unique "three paragraphs" rule in German law, the illegality clause in Japan, and the special case relief system in Anglo-American law system.The fourth part is the reflection on the relief system of pure economic loss.We find that there are three main ways of relief: one is represented by law and day, which is persistent in the constitutive elements of tort liability, and the relief is realized by applying causality or illegal innovation in the constitutive elements; the other is represented by Germany.Persist in the inherent legislation, through the interpretation of the existing legislation to remedy; one is the Anglo-American law system as the representative, persistent in the case of considerations to remedy.The fifth part reanalyzes the relief system of pure economic loss under the tort law of our country.In the relatively loose relief environment, by actively applying the constitutive elements such as causality and absorbing the achievements of the dynamic reference system, the pure economic loss can be remedied under relatively certain conditions, which ensures the rights and interests of the victims.The freedom of the perpetrator is also protected.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D923

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 海爾穆特·庫齊奧;朱巖;張玉東;;歐盟純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失賠償研究[J];北大法律評論;2009年01期

2 朱廣新;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范模式——我國侵權(quán)行為法對純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)上損失的規(guī)范樣式[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2006年05期

3 王衛(wèi)東;程乾平;;德國法上的純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失分析[J];德國研究;2006年03期

4 葉金強(qiáng);;侵權(quán)構(gòu)成中違法性要件的定位[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報);2007年01期

5 陳現(xiàn)杰;;《侵權(quán)責(zé)任法》一般條款中的違法性判斷要件[J];法律適用;2010年07期

6 李承亮;;侵權(quán)行為違法性的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)[J];法學(xué)評論;2011年02期

7 姜戰(zhàn)軍;;論純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失的概念[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2012年05期

8 葉金強(qiáng);;可預(yù)見性之判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的具體化——《合同法》第113條第1款但書之解釋路徑[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2013年03期

9 張谷;;作為救濟(jì)法的侵權(quán)法,也是自由保障法——對《中華人民共和國侵權(quán)責(zé)任法(草案)》的幾點(diǎn)意見[J];暨南學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年02期

10 于飛;;違背善良風(fēng)俗故意致人損害與純粹經(jīng)濟(jì)損失保護(hù)[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年04期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 徐銀波;侵權(quán)損害賠償論[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

本文編號：1758198