本文關(guān)鍵詞： 房屋買賣 居間人 如實告知義務(wù)　出處：《大連海事大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：如實告知義務(wù)在居間制度中意義重大,它是矯正信息不對稱的重要法律手段,更是誠信原則對居間人履行合同義務(wù)的基本要求。隨著房地產(chǎn)市場的飛速發(fā)展,因房屋買賣中居間人不履行如實告知義務(wù)引發(fā)的糾紛日漸增多,加之司法實務(wù)界對如實告知內(nèi)容的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、如實告知的信息類型、居間人應(yīng)否負(fù)有調(diào)查核實義務(wù)以及居間人承擔(dān)的民事責(zé)任等問題觀點不一,造成了現(xiàn)行法律制度難以規(guī)制社會生活的尷尬局面。民商法學(xué)者對《保險法》中投保人和被保險人的如實告知義務(wù)較為關(guān)注,但對居間人的如實告知義務(wù)鮮有問津。本文運用實證研究法、案例分析法,旨在研究房屋買賣居間人的如實告知義務(wù)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、履行如實告知義務(wù)的程度、違反如實告知義務(wù)的責(zé)任三個層面的問題,從法學(xué)、法經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、法解釋學(xué)等視角分析、完善房屋居間人如實告知義務(wù)制度,以期揭示《合同法》第425條在實然層面的真實內(nèi)涵,為司法實務(wù)中此類案件的判決提供參考。本文除引言和結(jié)論,分五個部分論述:第一部分:相關(guān)的概念界定。筆者立足于司法實踐,明確了房屋買賣居間人的概念及分類,房屋居間人如實告知義務(wù)的概念及性質(zhì),并劃定本文的研究范圍,僅限為委托人提供房地產(chǎn)信息和居間代理業(yè)務(wù)的、主體性質(zhì)為法人或非法人組織的居間人,不再區(qū)分報告居間和媒介居間。第二部分:居間人如實告知義務(wù)設(shè)立的必要性。筆者從經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)和法學(xué)的角度,揭示出居間人如實告知義務(wù)產(chǎn)生、發(fā)展的事實基礎(chǔ)與法理基礎(chǔ),并通過構(gòu)建居間博弈模型揭示如實告知義務(wù)對克服市場失靈的作用,凸顯如實告知義務(wù)的法律地位。第三部分:居間人如實告知義務(wù)的現(xiàn)狀分析。筆者采用實證分析法,對有關(guān)居間人如實告知義務(wù)的法律規(guī)范、司法案例進(jìn)行橫向、縱向的比較分析,剖析現(xiàn)有居間人如實告知義務(wù)的制度現(xiàn)狀及履行現(xiàn)狀。第四部分:居間人如實告知義務(wù)制度架構(gòu)。筆者運用解釋學(xué)原理,從劃定如實告知內(nèi)容的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、歸納如實告知的信息類型、界定居間人如實告知程度以及履行如實告知義務(wù)的方式四個角度豐富現(xiàn)有制度架構(gòu)。第五部分:違反如實告知義務(wù)的責(zé)任。筆者為更加完整地闡述房屋買賣居間人的如實告知義務(wù)制度,對違反如實告知義務(wù)的責(zé)任進(jìn)行分析,從違反如實告知義務(wù)的責(zé)任樣態(tài)、責(zé)任性質(zhì)、責(zé)任分配以及免責(zé)事由四個層面剖析房屋買賣居間人的責(zé)任制度。著重對房屋買賣居間人未履行如實告知義務(wù)承擔(dān)的損害賠償責(zé)任的性質(zhì)及其在居間人與相對人之間的分配進(jìn)行分析并得出結(jié)論:損害賠償責(zé)任宜在違約責(zé)任的框架內(nèi)解決,在責(zé)任分配時應(yīng)當(dāng)嚴(yán)格遵守"合同相對性原則"。
[Abstract]:The obligation to inform truthfully is of great significance in the intermediary system. It is an important legal means to correct the asymmetry of information, and it is also the basic requirement of the principle of good faith for the intermediary to fulfill his contractual obligations. With the rapid development of the real estate market, The disputes caused by the intermediary's failure to fulfill the obligation to inform truthfully are increasing. In addition, the judicial practice circles have regard to the standard of truth-telling content and the type of information truthfully informed. Views differ as to whether the intermediary should have the obligation to investigate and verify and whether the intermediary should bear civil liability. As a result, the current legal system is difficult to regulate social life. Civil and commercial law scholars pay more attention to the truthful duty of informing the insured and the insured in the Insurance Law. However, there is little interest in the truth-telling obligation of the intermediary. This paper uses the empirical research method and the case analysis method to study the standard of the truthful disclosure obligation of the broker, and the degree to which the truthful informing obligation is fulfilled. From the perspectives of law, law and economics, law hermeneutics, and so on, to perfect the system of truthful disclosure obligation of housing intermediary, in order to reveal the true connotation of Article 425 of contract Law on the realistic level, this paper analyzes the three levels of responsibility of violating the obligation to inform truthfully, from the perspective of law, law and hermeneutics. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article is divided into five parts: the first part: the definition of relevant concepts. Based on judicial practice, the author clearly defines the concept and classification of housing buyers and sellers. The concept and nature of the truthful disclosure obligation of a housing intermediary, and the delineation of the scope of the study in this article, shall be restricted to those who provide real estate information and intermediary business to the trustor, and who have the main nature of being a legal person or an unincorporated organization, The second part: the necessity of establishing the truthful disclosure obligation of the intermediary. From the angle of economics and law, the author reveals the factual basis and the legal basis of the intermediary's truthful obligation to inform. And through the construction of intermediary game model to reveal the role of truthful disclosure obligation to overcome market failure and highlight the legal status of truthful disclosure obligations. Part three: the analysis of the present situation of truthful disclosure obligations of intermediaries. The author adopts the empirical analysis method. To carry on horizontal and vertical comparative analysis of the legal norms and judicial cases concerning the truth-telling obligation of the intermediary, Part 4th: the framework of the system of truthful disclosure of the intermediary. The author applies the principle of hermeneutics to define the standard of the content of truthful notification. To summarize the types of information that are truthfully communicated, Defining the extent of truthful notification and the way to fulfill the obligation of truthful notification enrich the existing institutional framework. Part 5th: responsibility for violating the obligation of truthful informing. The obligation of truthful notification of a person, Analyzing the responsibility of violating the obligation to inform truthfully, from the pattern of responsibility of violating the obligation to inform truthfully, the nature of the responsibility, This paper analyzes the liability system of housing buyers and sellers from four aspects of responsibility distribution and exemption. Focusing on the nature of the liability for damages that the broker fails to fulfill the obligation of informing truthfully and the nature of the liability of the intermediary and the relative party. And concludes that liability for damage should be resolved within the framework of liability for breach of contract, The principle of relativity of contract should be strictly observed in the distribution of responsibility.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D922.284

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 陳倫倫;中英保險法中如實告知義務(wù)的比較分析[J];上海金融;2004年05期

2 廖麗玲;如實告知義務(wù)辨析[J];甘肅農(nóng)業(yè);2005年11期

3 張永利;孫占偉;;關(guān)于如實告知義務(wù)的若干思考——以告知義務(wù)的主體、內(nèi)容為中心[J];遼寧行政學(xué)院學(xué)報;2008年11期

4 朱倩倩;;保險法如實告知義務(wù)研究[J];湖北警官學(xué)院學(xué)報;2012年04期

5 徐蓉;保險中的誠實信用原則對如實告知義務(wù)的要求[J];社會科學(xué)研究;2003年06期

6 孫成聚;“如實告知”是保險雙方的法律義務(wù)[J];金融理論與實踐;2005年04期

7 馬寧;;比較法視野中的歐洲保險合同法如實告知義務(wù)評析[J];保險研究;2010年09期

8 金琴云;;如實告知義務(wù)的認(rèn)定[J];法制與社會;2011年33期

9 馬向,馮茂春;論保險法中的如實告知義務(wù)[J];河北廣播電視大學(xué)學(xué)報;2005年03期

10 蔣勤;違反如實告知義務(wù)的法律責(zé)任分析[J];中國保險管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2004年03期

相關(guān)會議論文 前8條

1 陳玉梅;;保險法如實告知義務(wù)若干法律問題的探討[A];貴州法學(xué)論壇第三屆文集[C];2001年

2 金燕;;淺談保險法上的如實告知義務(wù)——兼論《最高人民法院關(guān)于適用〈中華人民共和國保險法〉若干問題的解釋(二)》[A];浙江省2013年保險法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2013年

3 夏慧聰;;淺論人身保險如實告知義務(wù)的主體[A];浙江省2012年保險法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2012年

4 陳玉梅;;保險法如實告知義務(wù)若干法律問題的探討[A];第三屆貴州法學(xué)論壇文集[C];2001年

5 吳勇敏;;論投保人的如實告知義務(wù)——兼論我國《保險法》第16條的修改[A];浙江省2011年保險法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2011年

6 夏華玲;;試論投保人的如實告知義務(wù)[A];山東省保險學(xué)會2008年“改革·創(chuàng)新·提高保險競爭力”主題征文頒獎儀式暨學(xué)術(shù)報告會論文集[C];2008年

7 余羚;;人壽保險合同復(fù)效時的如實告知義務(wù)研究[A];浙江省2013年保險法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2013年

8 鄭金都;聶華元;;新《保險法》實施中的疑難問題研究[A];浙江省2010年保險法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 薛誠;論房屋買賣居間人如實告知義務(wù)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2015年

2 王洪俠;投保人的告知義務(wù)研究[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2014年

3 董孝成;投保人如實告知義務(wù)問題研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

4 周燕嬌;論人身保險合同中投保人的如實告知義務(wù)[D];首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2016年

5 譚吟瑜;保險法上如實告知義務(wù)的違反及其法律效果研究[D];廣西大學(xué);2016年

6 李翠影;房屋買賣居間人如實告知義務(wù)研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2017年

7 李家興;對如實告知義務(wù)制度的探析[D];山東大學(xué);2012年

8 曹治靜;違反如實告知義務(wù)法律后果研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

9 楊婷婷;保險法上如實告知義務(wù)研究[D];遼寧大學(xué);2015年

10 岑穎;論人身保險中的如實告知義務(wù)[D];中央民族大學(xué);2012年

，

本文編號：1506070