缔约过失责任制度初探
|
摘要
缔约过失责任理论起源于罗马法的诚信诉讼和诚信契约，最早由德国著名法学家耶林于1861年在其主编的《耶林法学年报》第4期上发表的《缔约上过失：契约无效与不成立之赔偿责任》一文中对缔约过失责任作了系统而深入的分析，认为在契约无效或不成立情况下，应依合同法来解决，从而推翻了实证法学的无契约即无责任立论，被誉为“法学上的发现”。耶林的缔约过失责任理论提出以后，一直是世界各国立法、判例、学界极为关注的民法理论问题，对传统的合同法乃至债法造成了极大的冲击，对各国的立法、判例产生了深远的影响。大陆法系国家虽然对缔约过失责任的理论基础看法不同，但在立法、判例逐渐接受缔约过失责任，英美法系国家则在判例中不同程度地予以适用。
何为缔约过失责任?学界有多种说法，通说认为缔约过失责任是指缔约人故意或过失违反法定先合同义务给缔约相对人所造成的损失，而应依法承担的民事责任。缔约过失责任的构成要件有四个：(1)缔约当事人违反先合同义务。所谓先合同义务是指合同生效前，缔约双方因缔结合同而依法应承担的彼此应遵守信用的一种合同附随义务。(2)缔约人受有损失。缔约上损失是信赖利益损失。信赖利益损失，是指因另一方的缔约过失行为而使合同不能成立或无效，导致信赖人所支付的各种费用和其他损
失不能得到弥补。缔约过失上的损失既可发生于缔约过程中，也
可发生于合同有效成立后。(3)违反先合同义务的一方有过错。
缔约过失上的过错包括故意和过失二方面，发生时间应在缔约过
程中，即缔约开始(要约生效)至合同有效成立止。(4)过错与
损失之间有法律上的因果关系。
缔约过失责任建立在什么理论基础之上?学说界观点不一，
主要有四种学说，即侵权行为说、法律行为说、法律规定说和诚
实信用说。笔者认为侵权行为说、法律行为说、法律规定说存在
某些理论上的缺陷或难以自圆其说之处，均不能成为缔约过失责
任的理论基础，惟有作为民法上“帝王条款”的诚实信用原则是
缔约过失责任的科学理论基础。
关于缔约过失责任的赔偿范围有人认为应以信赖利益为限，
有人认为应以履行利益为限，还有人认为应以实际损失为限。笔
者认为，无论在理论上、还是在实践中，从保护受害人和均衡双
方利益出发，都应以信赖利益为标准，在特殊情况下，还应以履
行利益为参考(为限)。
对缔约过失责任的适用范围，根据诚实信用原则，参照国内
外立法和司法实践，主要适用于假借订立合同，恶意进行磋商、
故意隐瞒于订立合同有关的重要事实或者提供虚假情况以及其
他违反诚实信用原则的行为等。
缔约过失责任是一种独立的民事责任，是在合同责任和侵权
责任难以救济的情况下才适用的一种补充民事责任，其与违约责
任、侵权责任在适用条件、范围等方面有明显区别。
缔约过失责任在我国起步较晚，最早见于《中华人民共和国
涉外经济合同法》、《中华人民共和国民法通则》和《中华人民共
和国经济合同法》，但规定的都很粗略，1999年颁布的《中华人
民共和国合同法》(下称《合同法》)，根据缔约过失责任理论，
参照国外缔约过失责任制度的规定，对缔约过失责任制度作了较
为完整的规定，从而完善了我国《合同法》的责任制度体系，实
现了法律对缔约当事人利益的扩大化保护，体现了《合同法》的
价值关怀。我国《合同法》虽对缔约过失责任制度有一定的发展，
但与其他国家的相关规定和我国客观需要相比较，尚有许多缺
陷，如未能界定先合同义务概念，未明确缔约过失责任的责任形
式、赔偿范围、归责原则和举证责任原则，在立法体系上也有不
完善之处等，这会导致司法实践中的许多问题难以操作，因此，
需要加强对缔约过失责任制度理论的研究，需要对《合同法》中
缔约过失责任的规定进行修改与完善，以保证缔约过失责任这一
合同法现代化发展的重要制度在我国立法上尽快完善、司法上准
确适用。
The theory of responsibility for negligence of concluding a treaty is originated from the civil ligation and contrast of Roman law honest and trustworthy. It was first posed by Yelin, a famous German jurist in 1861 when he published an article, "Fault in Concluding a treaty: the compensatory responsibility of invalid contract and untenable contract" in the fourth issue of "Annals of Yelin's science of law," whose chief editor was himself. In this article he systematically and deeply analyzed t he theory of responsibility for fault in concluding a treaty. He thought that under the condition that the contract is invalid or untenable, we should resolve issues according to contract law. Thus, it overthrowed the non-contract of positivism law namely responsibility doesn't set forth he's views, and it was honored "discovery in science of law". When Yelin's theory has been put forward, it has became an theoretic problem of civil law which is followed with interest by people who work in the circles of le
gislation and legal precedent and academy. It gives a great impact on traditional contract law even on law of debt. Besides, it has a further effect on every country's legislation and the legal precedent. Although countries belonging to the group which ins isted on the law of continent have different opinions on the theory of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty, they gradually accept it in the legislation and
case-law while countries in the law of Britain and America apply it in various degree in case-law.
What is the responsibility for fault or concluding a treaty? There are many answers in academic circles, but it is usually considered that the contractor of one side who violates the obligation legalized on purpose or negligently and causes his partaker's to lose his property will shoulder the civil responsibility according to law. The four necessary requirements in component of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty are as follow: 1)The party of concluding a treaty breaks the previous contract obligation. So called previous contract obligation refers to a kind of obligation that is attached to contract which both sides of concluding a treaty should bear the duties according to law and keep one's word mutually before the contract takes effect 2)People concluding a treaty have got losses, losses in concluding a treaty is the lose of trust interests. Trust interests losses is like that: because of one side's false action in concluding a treaty which makes contract invalid or untenable and all kinds of fees and other losses can't be compensated of fault in concluding a treaty can take place in the course of concluding a treaty or after the contract taking effect 3)The side who breaks the previous contract obligation makes mistakes. Mistakes contains deliberation and negligence, it should take place in the course concluding a treaty, that is to say, from the beginning of concluding a treaty major items take effect to the time when the contract
take effect 4)There is the legal causality between fault and damages.
What's the theoretical foundation of the responsibility for fault in concluding a treaty? There are different viewpoints in academic circles. The four main theories are the tort theory, the theory of legal act, the theory of legal provisions and the theory of honest and credit. The auther thinks that the first three theories have some theoretical defects or difficulties in justifying themselves and all of them can't be the theoretical foundation of the theory. Only honest and credit pr inciple as "Emperor's clause" in civil law can be the scientific and theoretical foundation of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty.
In regard to compensation scope of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty, someone believes that it sho uld base on trust interest, while some people think that it should base on fulfillment interests and others considers that. It should base on real losses. The auter thinks that no matter in theory and in practice, or in view of pro
何为缔约过失责任?学界有多种说法，通说认为缔约过失责任是指缔约人故意或过失违反法定先合同义务给缔约相对人所造成的损失，而应依法承担的民事责任。缔约过失责任的构成要件有四个：(1)缔约当事人违反先合同义务。所谓先合同义务是指合同生效前，缔约双方因缔结合同而依法应承担的彼此应遵守信用的一种合同附随义务。(2)缔约人受有损失。缔约上损失是信赖利益损失。信赖利益损失，是指因另一方的缔约过失行为而使合同不能成立或无效，导致信赖人所支付的各种费用和其他损
失不能得到弥补。缔约过失上的损失既可发生于缔约过程中，也
可发生于合同有效成立后。(3)违反先合同义务的一方有过错。
缔约过失上的过错包括故意和过失二方面，发生时间应在缔约过
程中，即缔约开始(要约生效)至合同有效成立止。(4)过错与
损失之间有法律上的因果关系。
缔约过失责任建立在什么理论基础之上?学说界观点不一，
主要有四种学说，即侵权行为说、法律行为说、法律规定说和诚
实信用说。笔者认为侵权行为说、法律行为说、法律规定说存在
某些理论上的缺陷或难以自圆其说之处，均不能成为缔约过失责
任的理论基础，惟有作为民法上“帝王条款”的诚实信用原则是
缔约过失责任的科学理论基础。
关于缔约过失责任的赔偿范围有人认为应以信赖利益为限，
有人认为应以履行利益为限，还有人认为应以实际损失为限。笔
者认为，无论在理论上、还是在实践中，从保护受害人和均衡双
方利益出发，都应以信赖利益为标准，在特殊情况下，还应以履
行利益为参考(为限)。
对缔约过失责任的适用范围，根据诚实信用原则，参照国内
外立法和司法实践，主要适用于假借订立合同，恶意进行磋商、
故意隐瞒于订立合同有关的重要事实或者提供虚假情况以及其
他违反诚实信用原则的行为等。
缔约过失责任是一种独立的民事责任，是在合同责任和侵权
责任难以救济的情况下才适用的一种补充民事责任，其与违约责
任、侵权责任在适用条件、范围等方面有明显区别。
缔约过失责任在我国起步较晚，最早见于《中华人民共和国
涉外经济合同法》、《中华人民共和国民法通则》和《中华人民共
和国经济合同法》，但规定的都很粗略，1999年颁布的《中华人
民共和国合同法》(下称《合同法》)，根据缔约过失责任理论，
参照国外缔约过失责任制度的规定，对缔约过失责任制度作了较
为完整的规定，从而完善了我国《合同法》的责任制度体系，实
现了法律对缔约当事人利益的扩大化保护，体现了《合同法》的
价值关怀。我国《合同法》虽对缔约过失责任制度有一定的发展，
但与其他国家的相关规定和我国客观需要相比较，尚有许多缺
陷，如未能界定先合同义务概念，未明确缔约过失责任的责任形
式、赔偿范围、归责原则和举证责任原则，在立法体系上也有不
完善之处等，这会导致司法实践中的许多问题难以操作，因此，
需要加强对缔约过失责任制度理论的研究，需要对《合同法》中
缔约过失责任的规定进行修改与完善，以保证缔约过失责任这一
合同法现代化发展的重要制度在我国立法上尽快完善、司法上准
确适用。
The theory of responsibility for negligence of concluding a treaty is originated from the civil ligation and contrast of Roman law honest and trustworthy. It was first posed by Yelin, a famous German jurist in 1861 when he published an article, "Fault in Concluding a treaty: the compensatory responsibility of invalid contract and untenable contract" in the fourth issue of "Annals of Yelin's science of law," whose chief editor was himself. In this article he systematically and deeply analyzed t he theory of responsibility for fault in concluding a treaty. He thought that under the condition that the contract is invalid or untenable, we should resolve issues according to contract law. Thus, it overthrowed the non-contract of positivism law namely responsibility doesn't set forth he's views, and it was honored "discovery in science of law". When Yelin's theory has been put forward, it has became an theoretic problem of civil law which is followed with interest by people who work in the circles of le
gislation and legal precedent and academy. It gives a great impact on traditional contract law even on law of debt. Besides, it has a further effect on every country's legislation and the legal precedent. Although countries belonging to the group which ins isted on the law of continent have different opinions on the theory of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty, they gradually accept it in the legislation and
case-law while countries in the law of Britain and America apply it in various degree in case-law.
What is the responsibility for fault or concluding a treaty? There are many answers in academic circles, but it is usually considered that the contractor of one side who violates the obligation legalized on purpose or negligently and causes his partaker's to lose his property will shoulder the civil responsibility according to law. The four necessary requirements in component of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty are as follow: 1)The party of concluding a treaty breaks the previous contract obligation. So called previous contract obligation refers to a kind of obligation that is attached to contract which both sides of concluding a treaty should bear the duties according to law and keep one's word mutually before the contract takes effect 2)People concluding a treaty have got losses, losses in concluding a treaty is the lose of trust interests. Trust interests losses is like that: because of one side's false action in concluding a treaty which makes contract invalid or untenable and all kinds of fees and other losses can't be compensated of fault in concluding a treaty can take place in the course of concluding a treaty or after the contract taking effect 3)The side who breaks the previous contract obligation makes mistakes. Mistakes contains deliberation and negligence, it should take place in the course concluding a treaty, that is to say, from the beginning of concluding a treaty major items take effect to the time when the contract
take effect 4)There is the legal causality between fault and damages.
What's the theoretical foundation of the responsibility for fault in concluding a treaty? There are different viewpoints in academic circles. The four main theories are the tort theory, the theory of legal act, the theory of legal provisions and the theory of honest and credit. The auther thinks that the first three theories have some theoretical defects or difficulties in justifying themselves and all of them can't be the theoretical foundation of the theory. Only honest and credit pr inciple as "Emperor's clause" in civil law can be the scientific and theoretical foundation of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty.
In regard to compensation scope of responsibility for fault of concluding a treaty, someone believes that it sho uld base on trust interest, while some people think that it should base on fulfillment interests and others considers that. It should base on real losses. The auter thinks that no matter in theory and in practice, or in view of pro
引文
1．周枬著《罗马法原论》下册，商务印书馆1994年6月第1版；
2．王家福主编《中国民法学、民法债权》，法律出版社1991年第1版；
3．李国光主编《合同法理解与运用》，人民法院出版社1999年第1版；
4．王泽鉴著《民法学说与判例研究》第1、4、5册，中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版；
5．李国光主编《中国合同法条文解释》，新华出版社1999年3月第1版；
6．陈自强著《民法讲义Ⅰ契约之成立与生效》，法律出版社2002年9月第1版；
7．房绍坤著《民商法问题研究与运用》，北京大学出版社2002年5月第1版；
8．王泽鉴著《民法原理》第1册，中国政法大学出版社，2001年7月第1版；
9．王利明著《合同法研究》第1卷，中国人民大学出版社2002年11月第1版；
10．王军编著《美国合同法判例与选评》，中国政法大学出版社，1995年1月第1版；
11．王利明《违约责任论》，中国人民大学出版社2003年1月修订版；
12．梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第3、7、11、19卷，中国政法大学出版社1995年、1997年、1999年、2001年第1版；
13．王利明、杨立新主编《中国民法案例与学理研究·债权篇》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版；
14．王利明主编《民商法研究》第3、4辑，法律出版社2001年12月、2002年2月第1版；
15．余延满《合同法原论》，武汉大学出版社1999年12月第1版；
16．朱岩编译《德国新债法条文及官方解释》，法律出版社2003年1月第1版；
17．杜景林、卢谌编著《德国债法改革》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版。
18．杨立新主编《侵权司法对策》，吉林人民出版社2002年11月第1版。
19．杜景林、卢谌译《德国民法典》，中国政法大学出版社1999年8月第1版。
2．王家福主编《中国民法学、民法债权》，法律出版社1991年第1版；
3．李国光主编《合同法理解与运用》，人民法院出版社1999年第1版；
4．王泽鉴著《民法学说与判例研究》第1、4、5册，中国政法大学出版社1998年第1版；
5．李国光主编《中国合同法条文解释》，新华出版社1999年3月第1版；
6．陈自强著《民法讲义Ⅰ契约之成立与生效》，法律出版社2002年9月第1版；
7．房绍坤著《民商法问题研究与运用》，北京大学出版社2002年5月第1版；
8．王泽鉴著《民法原理》第1册，中国政法大学出版社，2001年7月第1版；
9．王利明著《合同法研究》第1卷，中国人民大学出版社2002年11月第1版；
10．王军编著《美国合同法判例与选评》，中国政法大学出版社，1995年1月第1版；
11．王利明《违约责任论》，中国人民大学出版社2003年1月修订版；
12．梁慧星主编《民商法论丛》第3、7、11、19卷，中国政法大学出版社1995年、1997年、1999年、2001年第1版；
13．王利明、杨立新主编《中国民法案例与学理研究·债权篇》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版；
14．王利明主编《民商法研究》第3、4辑，法律出版社2001年12月、2002年2月第1版；
15．余延满《合同法原论》，武汉大学出版社1999年12月第1版；
16．朱岩编译《德国新债法条文及官方解释》，法律出版社2003年1月第1版；
17．杜景林、卢谌编著《德国债法改革》，法律出版社2003年2月第1版。
18．杨立新主编《侵权司法对策》，吉林人民出版社2002年11月第1版。
19．杜景林、卢谌译《德国民法典》，中国政法大学出版社1999年8月第1版。