本文選題：居間商　切入點(diǎn)：損害賠償　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著二手房買(mǎi)賣(mài)程序越來(lái)越復(fù)雜化、專(zhuān)業(yè)化、網(wǎng)絡(luò)化，推動(dòng)著房屋中介市場(chǎng)的不斷壯大。越來(lái)越多的房屋買(mǎi)賣(mài)通過(guò)中介公司來(lái)完成。但是由于現(xiàn)行法律對(duì)中介公司的規(guī)范十分缺少，以及相關(guān)的關(guān)于居間的法律規(guī)定也十分籠統(tǒng)。關(guān)于居間合同的規(guī)定也就只有《合同法》中的四條。也即是《合同法》從第四百二十四條到第四百二十七條這四條。所以關(guān)于對(duì)房地產(chǎn)中介市場(chǎng)的規(guī)制就十分的不健全，但是在房屋買(mǎi)賣(mài)中特別是二手房買(mǎi)賣(mài)中又離不開(kāi)中介公司的介入。特別像北京這樣的一線城市，中介公司介入二手房買(mǎi)賣(mài)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了80%。這樣的一個(gè)市場(chǎng)導(dǎo)致很多人痛恨中介公司是“黑公司”，所以很多時(shí)候在法院的訴訟中，法官也會(huì)有這樣的感情傾向，這樣難免會(huì)導(dǎo)致判案時(shí)過(guò)多的加入法官的個(gè)人感情因素，而不能達(dá)到法律的公平和公正。由于關(guān)于居間商民事責(zé)任規(guī)定的缺乏，導(dǎo)致在司法審判中，出現(xiàn)很多無(wú)法可依，甚至法官造法的現(xiàn)象發(fā)生。 筆者在這里通過(guò)分析一個(gè)典型的司法個(gè)案的方式，對(duì)我國(guó)現(xiàn)存的由于法律規(guī)定的缺少所導(dǎo)致的司法不公現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行研究和思考。以期能夠?qū)ξ覈?guó)關(guān)于居間商民事責(zé)任的分配方面在立法和司法審判中提供有益的參考。 第一部分主要是對(duì)司法個(gè)案的引入，主要介紹司法審判中，對(duì)居間商民事責(zé)任的認(rèn)定與評(píng)判。在司法審判中，法官根據(jù)過(guò)錯(cuò)責(zé)任的大小來(lái)認(rèn)定責(zé)任的承擔(dān)。第二部分是對(duì)案例爭(zhēng)議焦點(diǎn)的總結(jié)。第三部分為本篇文章的重要部分，首先是從合同相對(duì)性原則方面對(duì)司法個(gè)案進(jìn)行評(píng)判，得出在居間房屋買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同無(wú)效后締約過(guò)失責(zé)任的承擔(dān)，只能在締約人之間承擔(dān)。而不能擴(kuò)大到買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同之外的居間商。其次是從居間商的如實(shí)報(bào)告義務(wù)對(duì)司法個(gè)案進(jìn)行分析，得出從立法的現(xiàn)行規(guī)定，以及居間法律制度的不完善，對(duì)居間商如實(shí)報(bào)告義務(wù)和調(diào)查義務(wù)的全面要求過(guò)于苛刻。其三是從出賣(mài)人的權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保義務(wù)對(duì)居間商的民事責(zé)任的影響方面進(jìn)行分析。出賣(mài)人是標(biāo)的物權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保義務(wù)的主要承擔(dān)者，，而居間商只能是根據(jù)出賣(mài)人所提交的材料進(jìn)行審查和提示義務(wù)，如果出賣(mài)人有故意隱瞞的傾向，作為居間商是很難得知的。其四是從居間商關(guān)于權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保義務(wù)的免責(zé)條款上進(jìn)行分析，根據(jù)意思自治原則，居間商在合同中有免責(zé)條款的，在司法判案中，應(yīng)該遵守當(dāng)事人的約定，體現(xiàn)私法的自治性。第四部分，通過(guò)分析個(gè)案，提出對(duì)我國(guó)居間商民事責(zé)任的相關(guān)思考及完善建議。立法建議主要是要建立完善的信息告知制度和居間商有條件的調(diào)查義務(wù)。
[Abstract]:As the procedures for buying and selling second-hand houses become more and more complicated, specialized and networked, The housing intermediary market is growing rapidly. More and more houses are bought and sold through intermediary companies. However, due to the lack of regulations on intermediary companies in the current law, And the relevant legal provisions on intermediation are very general. The provisions on intermediation contract are only four articles in the contract law. That is, the four articles of the contract law from article 424 to article 427. So the regulation of the real estate intermediary market is very imperfect, However, in housing sales, especially in second-hand housing transactions, the intervention of intermediary companies is indispensable. Especially in first-tier cities such as Beijing, The involvement of intermediary companies in the sale of second-hand houses has reached 80%. This kind of market has led many people to hate the fact that intermediary companies are "black companies," so many times in court proceedings, judges will also have such an emotional tendency. This will inevitably lead to too many personal emotional factors of joining the judges in the adjudication of the case, without achieving the fairness and fairness of the law. Because of the lack of provisions on the civil liability of intermediaries, there will be a lot of problems in the judicial trial. Even the phenomenon of judges making laws occurs. By analyzing a typical judicial case here, This paper studies and ponders the phenomenon of judicial injustice caused by the lack of legal provisions in our country in order to provide a useful reference for the distribution of civil liability of intermediaries in our country in legislation and judicial trial. The first part is the introduction of judicial cases, mainly introduces the identification and evaluation of the civil liability of intermediaries in judicial trials. The second part is the summary of the focus of the case dispute. The third part is the important part of this article, the first part is to judge the judicial cases from the principle of relativity of contract. It comes to the conclusion that the liability for contracting negligence can only be borne between the contracting parties after the contract of sale and purchase of intermediate houses is invalid, and it cannot be extended to the intermediary outside the contract of sale. Secondly, the judicial case is analyzed from the truthful reporting obligation of the intermediary. From the current provisions of the legislation, as well as from the imperfections of the intermediary legal system, The overall requirement on the truthful reporting obligation and investigation obligation of the intermediary is too harsh. Thirdly, it analyzes the impact of the seller's rights and defects on the civil liability of the broker. The seller is the subject matter right. The principal bearer of the obligation of surety, The intermediary can only review and suggest the materials submitted by the seller, and if the seller has a tendency to deliberately conceal, As an intermediary, it is difficult to know. Fourth, it is analyzed from the exemption clause of the intermediary on the obligation to guarantee the defect of the right. According to the principle of autonomy of will, if the intermediary has an exemption clause in the contract, it will be in the judicial judgment. Should abide by the agreement of the parties, reflect the autonomy of private law. Part IV, through the analysis of individual cases, This paper puts forward some thoughts and suggestions on the civil liability of intermediary merchants in China. The legislative suggestion is mainly to establish a perfect information informing system and a conditional investigation obligation of intermediary merchants.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前8條

1 張濤;;由居間合同與委托合同的區(qū)別引發(fā)的法律思考[J];才智;2012年02期

2 劉長(zhǎng)濱,都昌滿;中美房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)業(yè)發(fā)展及管理制度比較[J];城市開(kāi)發(fā);2002年01期

3 稅兵;;居間合同中的雙邊道德風(fēng)險(xiǎn)——以“跳單”現(xiàn)象為例[J];法學(xué);2011年11期

4 黃英 ,劉洪玉;中國(guó)房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)服務(wù)業(yè)的現(xiàn)狀與發(fā)展[J];中國(guó)房地產(chǎn);2004年09期

5 游本強(qiáng);芻論居間[J];貴州財(cái)經(jīng)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);1998年05期

6 吳坤埔;;論私法中權(quán)利瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任的發(fā)展[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(中旬刊);2010年04期

7 牛怡霖;;論買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同中的瑕疵擔(dān)保責(zé)任[J];時(shí)代經(jīng)貿(mào)(中旬刊);2007年S2期

8 廖俊平,徐斌;限制房地產(chǎn)經(jīng)紀(jì)收費(fèi)價(jià)格的必要性[J];中外房地產(chǎn)導(dǎo)報(bào);2003年17期

本文編號(hào)：1679456