纯经济损失的侵权法保护研究
摘要
纯经济损失(pure economic loss)是指被害人在没有有形的人身、财产损害的情况下所遭受的直接的、可以用金钱衡量的经济上的不利益,其具有直接性、无形性、不确定性等特点。在欧洲比较法领域,学者关于纯经济损失问题的研究著作已经汗牛充栋。但是在中国,关于该问题的理论探讨和实践探索都才刚刚起步,立法中也没有明确使用“纯经济损失”一词。中国新颁布的侵权责任法第二条规定：“侵害民事权益,应当依照本法承担侵权责任。本法所称民事权益,包括生命权、健康权、姓名权、名誉权、荣誉权、肖像权、隐私权、婚姻自主权、监护权、所有权、用益物权、担保物权、著作权、专利权、商标专用权、发现权、股权、继承权等人身、财产权益。”该条款中没有将纯经济损失列举在内,笔者认为,在该法今后的实施和完善过程中,对该问题进行探讨具有深刻的理论和实践意义。基于以上原因,笔者写作本文。
本文一共分为五章。第一章阐述了纯经济损失的的词源、概念、性质、特征、纯经济损失与直接损失、间接损失等相关概念的区别以及纯经济损失的类型化分析。就性质上来看,纯经济损失属于一种法律给予消极保护的利益。就类型来看,笔者赞成将其分为反射损失、转移损失、由于公共市场、运输通道和公用设施的关闭造成的纯经济损失以及对错误的信息、建议和专业服务的信赖而导致的纯经济损失四种。
第二章阐述了两大法系中的典型国家在立法、理论和实务中对纯经济损失保护问题的相关内容。法国民法典中对于损害的定义具有高度概括性,立法中对纯经济损失的损害赔偿并没有过多的限制。在司法实践中,法官主要根据损害的直接性、确定性和损害与侵权行为的因果关系来决定是否对纯经济损失给予赔偿。德国民法典在第823条中列举了绝对权利清单,纯经济损失被排除在此条款的保护范围之外。关于纯经济损失性质的损害,德国立法者主要通过扩充合同法的内容来加以保护。英国是一个判例法国家,法官在处理案件的过程中具有很大的自由裁量权,在个案的审理过程中,法官们主要通过各种政策考量因素来决定纯经济损失性质的损害的赔偿与否。美国立法界和理论界都没有给予纯经济损失问题以过多的关注,立法中仅在产品责任领域规定了纯经济损失责任排除规则,由此,受害人就自身的纯经济损失不能提起过失侵权之诉。
第三章主要阐述了纯经济损失可赔偿与否的各种考量因素。反对对纯经济损失给予侵权损害赔偿的学者主要持以下观点：首先,对纯经济损失予以赔偿会导致众多的诉讼像洪水一样向法院涌来,浪费法院的司法资源；其次,要求加害人对纯经济损失予以赔偿会给其造成过重的负担,打消其从事生产活动的积极性从而不利于社会的发展；第三,随着责任保险制度的发展,由受损失方对自己可能遭受的损失予以投保更有可行性；最后,对纯经济损失给予侵权损害赔偿会不当扩大可赔偿损害的范围,等等。但是,也有学者针对以上观点作了相应的反驳。笔者认为,纯经济损失的外延非常丰富,对于其是否属于可赔偿性损害,很难给以一个明确的界定,因此法官在审理这些案件的过程中,应该具体情况具体分析,通过对侵权责任各要件的认定,以及灵活运用法律的基本原则基本精神来平衡受害人和加害人之间的利益。
第四章第一节介绍了中国的民法通则、侵权责任法、产品质量法、人身损害赔偿司法解释等相关法律法规关于纯经济损失性质的损害的损害赔偿规定,这些法律法规明确保护的可赔偿性损害包括被扶养人生活费、死亡赔偿金、交通费、住宿费和护理费等。笔者认为,这些损失的请求权人自身并没有遭受人身和财产上的损害,因此他们的损失属于纯经济损失,我国立法对这些损失的赔偿予以规定是合理而进步的。本章第二节挑选了司法实务中与纯经济损失问题有关的两个案例进行了案例分析,对案件中涉及的纯经济损失性质的损害的可赔偿与否发表了笔者的一些见解。本章第三节概要介绍了理论界的一些学者对于纯经济损失问题的理论观点。
最后一章是本文的重点。在本章中,笔者首先对我国现行的侵权责任法存在的一些不尽完善之处提出了自己的看法,例如,首先,现行侵权责任法没有规定对第三人侵害债权造成的债权人、债务人的损失给予侵权损害赔偿；其次,现行侵权责任法中没有规定“被扶养人生活费”这一项。笔者认为,我国可以借鉴国外先进的立法模式,对故意和重大过失侵害债权造成的纯经济损失予以侵权法保护,同时,应该在理清被扶养人生活费和死亡赔偿金之间的关系的基础上,对两者加以细致的规定。其次,纯经济损失的保护同时会涉及到合同法和侵权责任法的调整范围的交叉问题,笔者认为,应该对两者的调整范围划出一个界限,以使两部法律能够并行不悖地保护民事主体的利益。最后,笔者提出了将纯经济损失一词引入我国侵权责任法的大致设想,并对纯经济损失的类型化保护提出了一些建议。
Pure economic loss is that the plaintiff has not suffered loss about his/her visible body or property, but purely a directly and weighable economic. It is direct, invisible and uncertainly. In European comparison test domain, scholars'works about pure economic loss have already huge collection. But in china, the theory discussion and the practice exploration has just started. There has not been clear about the use of the word "pure economic loss". The Chinese new promulgation right infringement responsibility law second stipulation has regulated that:"the violation civil rights and interest, must defer to this law to undertake the right infringement responsibility. In this law, the civil rights and interests are including the life power, the healthy power, the right to name, the right of reputation, the right of fame, the right of portrait, the right of privacy, the right to freedom of choice in marriage, the right of guardianship, the property rights, uses people, the property rights and interests and so on profit real right, security interest, copyright, patent, copyright protection, discovery power, stockholder's rights, right of inheritance." In this provision, there has no idea about pure economic. The author of this thesis thinks that in the process of the new law's implementation and the perfect, talking about this topic has the theory and the practice significance. Based on the above reason, the author writes this article.
This article altogether divides into five chapters. The first chapter elaborated the pure economic loss etymology, concept, nature, characteristic, pure economic loss and direct loss, indirect loss and so on related concept difference as well as pure economic loss typological analysis. Looked on the nature, the pure economic loss belongs to one kind of the benefit. As to the type, the author approved that divides into the reflecting loss, the transferred lose, the pure economic loss because of the close of the public market as well as the pure economic loss for wrong information, suggestion and professional service.
The second chapter elaborated the legislation, the theory and the practice to the pure economic loss protection in two legal systems. In the French code civil has highly the concise quality regarding the harm definition. In the legislation to pure economic loss damage compensate there has no excessively limits. In the judicial practice, judge mainly according to the harm's substantives, definite and the harm and abuse of authority's causal relation decide whether to give the compensation to the pure economic loss. The German code civil has enumerated the absolute right detailed list in 823rd, the pure economic loss is removed in outside this provision extent of protection. About the pure economic loss nature's harm, the German legislators mainly come through the expansion law of contract's content to protect. Britain is a case-law country, judge has the very big freedom in the processing case's process to decide after deliberation the power, in the case trying process, judges mainly decides the pure economic loss nature through each kind of policy consideration factor the harm compensation or not. The US legislated and the theorists has not given the pure economic loss question by excessively many attention, in the legislation had only stipulated in the product liability domain the pure economic loss responsibility elimination rule, from this, the victim could not mention suing of the error right infringement on own pure economic loss.
The third chapter mainly elaborated each kind of consideration factor about the pure economic loss may compensate or not. The scholar who opposite to give the right infringement damage compensate to the pure economic loss mainly holds the following viewpoint:First, compensates to the pure economic loss can cause the numerous lawsuit floods to well up equally likely to the court, wastes the court the judicial resources; Next, requests the party causing an injury to compensate to the pure economic loss can give it to create the overweight burden, dispels it to be engaged in the production activity the enthusiasm, thus does not favor social the development; Third, along with the liability insurance system's development, the people who suffer the loss has the feasibility to take insurance; Finally, gives the right of infringement damage compensate to the pure economic loss not to meet, when expands may compensate the harm the scope, and so on. But, also had the scholar to make the corresponding rebuttal in view of the above viewpoint. The author believed that the pure economic loss's extension is rich, it is very difficult to give explicit limits whether the loss is belonged to the compensation harm. Therefore, the judge should consider the details of the tort and to decide the duty.
The fourth chapter firstly introduced Chinese general provisions of the civil law, the right infringement responsibility law, the product quality law, the person damage compensate judicial interpretation and so on related laws and regulations about the pure economic loss nature's harm's damage compensate stipulation, these laws and regulations are clear about the protection to be possible the compensation harm including to nurture the person living expenses, the death indemnity, the traffic allowance, the hotel expense and nursing spend and so on. The author believed that these loss's request power person oneself has not suffered in the person and the property harm, therefore their loss belongs to the pure economic loss, our country legislates to these loss compensation to stipulate that is reasonable and progressive. This chapter secondly chose two cases in this area to carry on the case analysis with the pure economic loss question, involved the pure economic loss nature harm to the case to be possible to compensate or not has expressed author's some opinions. This chapter thirdly outlines introduced theorists some scholars regarding the pure economic loss question theory viewpoint.
Last chapter is this article's key point. In this chapter, the author firstly proposed to our country present right infringement responsibility law existence's place of some endless consummation own view. For example, firstly, the present right infringement responsibility law stipulation to the third person the creditor who, debtor's loss violates the creditor's rights to create has not given the right infringement damage compensate; Next, in the present right infringement responsibility law had not stipulated that "is nurtured the person living expenses" this item. The author believed that our country may profit from the overseas advanced legislative pattern, causes the pure economic loss to intentionally and the gross negligence violation creditor's rights to infringe upon the right the law protection, simultaneously, should, in clears off is nurtured between the person living expenses and in the death indemnity relations foundation, performs the careful stipulation to both. Next, the pure economic loss's protection will simultaneously involve to the law of contract and the right infringement responsibility method setting range overlapping question, the author believed that should delimit a boundary to both setting range, will enable two laws to protect the civil subject compatibly the benefit. Finally, the author proposed will be pure an economic loss word to introduce our country to infringe upon the right the responsibility method approximate tentative plan, and put forward some proposals to the pure economic loss's typological protection.
本文一共分为五章。第一章阐述了纯经济损失的的词源、概念、性质、特征、纯经济损失与直接损失、间接损失等相关概念的区别以及纯经济损失的类型化分析。就性质上来看,纯经济损失属于一种法律给予消极保护的利益。就类型来看,笔者赞成将其分为反射损失、转移损失、由于公共市场、运输通道和公用设施的关闭造成的纯经济损失以及对错误的信息、建议和专业服务的信赖而导致的纯经济损失四种。
第二章阐述了两大法系中的典型国家在立法、理论和实务中对纯经济损失保护问题的相关内容。法国民法典中对于损害的定义具有高度概括性,立法中对纯经济损失的损害赔偿并没有过多的限制。在司法实践中,法官主要根据损害的直接性、确定性和损害与侵权行为的因果关系来决定是否对纯经济损失给予赔偿。德国民法典在第823条中列举了绝对权利清单,纯经济损失被排除在此条款的保护范围之外。关于纯经济损失性质的损害,德国立法者主要通过扩充合同法的内容来加以保护。英国是一个判例法国家,法官在处理案件的过程中具有很大的自由裁量权,在个案的审理过程中,法官们主要通过各种政策考量因素来决定纯经济损失性质的损害的赔偿与否。美国立法界和理论界都没有给予纯经济损失问题以过多的关注,立法中仅在产品责任领域规定了纯经济损失责任排除规则,由此,受害人就自身的纯经济损失不能提起过失侵权之诉。
第三章主要阐述了纯经济损失可赔偿与否的各种考量因素。反对对纯经济损失给予侵权损害赔偿的学者主要持以下观点：首先,对纯经济损失予以赔偿会导致众多的诉讼像洪水一样向法院涌来,浪费法院的司法资源；其次,要求加害人对纯经济损失予以赔偿会给其造成过重的负担,打消其从事生产活动的积极性从而不利于社会的发展；第三,随着责任保险制度的发展,由受损失方对自己可能遭受的损失予以投保更有可行性；最后,对纯经济损失给予侵权损害赔偿会不当扩大可赔偿损害的范围,等等。但是,也有学者针对以上观点作了相应的反驳。笔者认为,纯经济损失的外延非常丰富,对于其是否属于可赔偿性损害,很难给以一个明确的界定,因此法官在审理这些案件的过程中,应该具体情况具体分析,通过对侵权责任各要件的认定,以及灵活运用法律的基本原则基本精神来平衡受害人和加害人之间的利益。
第四章第一节介绍了中国的民法通则、侵权责任法、产品质量法、人身损害赔偿司法解释等相关法律法规关于纯经济损失性质的损害的损害赔偿规定,这些法律法规明确保护的可赔偿性损害包括被扶养人生活费、死亡赔偿金、交通费、住宿费和护理费等。笔者认为,这些损失的请求权人自身并没有遭受人身和财产上的损害,因此他们的损失属于纯经济损失,我国立法对这些损失的赔偿予以规定是合理而进步的。本章第二节挑选了司法实务中与纯经济损失问题有关的两个案例进行了案例分析,对案件中涉及的纯经济损失性质的损害的可赔偿与否发表了笔者的一些见解。本章第三节概要介绍了理论界的一些学者对于纯经济损失问题的理论观点。
最后一章是本文的重点。在本章中,笔者首先对我国现行的侵权责任法存在的一些不尽完善之处提出了自己的看法,例如,首先,现行侵权责任法没有规定对第三人侵害债权造成的债权人、债务人的损失给予侵权损害赔偿；其次,现行侵权责任法中没有规定“被扶养人生活费”这一项。笔者认为,我国可以借鉴国外先进的立法模式,对故意和重大过失侵害债权造成的纯经济损失予以侵权法保护,同时,应该在理清被扶养人生活费和死亡赔偿金之间的关系的基础上,对两者加以细致的规定。其次,纯经济损失的保护同时会涉及到合同法和侵权责任法的调整范围的交叉问题,笔者认为,应该对两者的调整范围划出一个界限,以使两部法律能够并行不悖地保护民事主体的利益。最后,笔者提出了将纯经济损失一词引入我国侵权责任法的大致设想,并对纯经济损失的类型化保护提出了一些建议。
Pure economic loss is that the plaintiff has not suffered loss about his/her visible body or property, but purely a directly and weighable economic. It is direct, invisible and uncertainly. In European comparison test domain, scholars'works about pure economic loss have already huge collection. But in china, the theory discussion and the practice exploration has just started. There has not been clear about the use of the word "pure economic loss". The Chinese new promulgation right infringement responsibility law second stipulation has regulated that:"the violation civil rights and interest, must defer to this law to undertake the right infringement responsibility. In this law, the civil rights and interests are including the life power, the healthy power, the right to name, the right of reputation, the right of fame, the right of portrait, the right of privacy, the right to freedom of choice in marriage, the right of guardianship, the property rights, uses people, the property rights and interests and so on profit real right, security interest, copyright, patent, copyright protection, discovery power, stockholder's rights, right of inheritance." In this provision, there has no idea about pure economic. The author of this thesis thinks that in the process of the new law's implementation and the perfect, talking about this topic has the theory and the practice significance. Based on the above reason, the author writes this article.
This article altogether divides into five chapters. The first chapter elaborated the pure economic loss etymology, concept, nature, characteristic, pure economic loss and direct loss, indirect loss and so on related concept difference as well as pure economic loss typological analysis. Looked on the nature, the pure economic loss belongs to one kind of the benefit. As to the type, the author approved that divides into the reflecting loss, the transferred lose, the pure economic loss because of the close of the public market as well as the pure economic loss for wrong information, suggestion and professional service.
The second chapter elaborated the legislation, the theory and the practice to the pure economic loss protection in two legal systems. In the French code civil has highly the concise quality regarding the harm definition. In the legislation to pure economic loss damage compensate there has no excessively limits. In the judicial practice, judge mainly according to the harm's substantives, definite and the harm and abuse of authority's causal relation decide whether to give the compensation to the pure economic loss. The German code civil has enumerated the absolute right detailed list in 823rd, the pure economic loss is removed in outside this provision extent of protection. About the pure economic loss nature's harm, the German legislators mainly come through the expansion law of contract's content to protect. Britain is a case-law country, judge has the very big freedom in the processing case's process to decide after deliberation the power, in the case trying process, judges mainly decides the pure economic loss nature through each kind of policy consideration factor the harm compensation or not. The US legislated and the theorists has not given the pure economic loss question by excessively many attention, in the legislation had only stipulated in the product liability domain the pure economic loss responsibility elimination rule, from this, the victim could not mention suing of the error right infringement on own pure economic loss.
The third chapter mainly elaborated each kind of consideration factor about the pure economic loss may compensate or not. The scholar who opposite to give the right infringement damage compensate to the pure economic loss mainly holds the following viewpoint:First, compensates to the pure economic loss can cause the numerous lawsuit floods to well up equally likely to the court, wastes the court the judicial resources; Next, requests the party causing an injury to compensate to the pure economic loss can give it to create the overweight burden, dispels it to be engaged in the production activity the enthusiasm, thus does not favor social the development; Third, along with the liability insurance system's development, the people who suffer the loss has the feasibility to take insurance; Finally, gives the right of infringement damage compensate to the pure economic loss not to meet, when expands may compensate the harm the scope, and so on. But, also had the scholar to make the corresponding rebuttal in view of the above viewpoint. The author believed that the pure economic loss's extension is rich, it is very difficult to give explicit limits whether the loss is belonged to the compensation harm. Therefore, the judge should consider the details of the tort and to decide the duty.
The fourth chapter firstly introduced Chinese general provisions of the civil law, the right infringement responsibility law, the product quality law, the person damage compensate judicial interpretation and so on related laws and regulations about the pure economic loss nature's harm's damage compensate stipulation, these laws and regulations are clear about the protection to be possible the compensation harm including to nurture the person living expenses, the death indemnity, the traffic allowance, the hotel expense and nursing spend and so on. The author believed that these loss's request power person oneself has not suffered in the person and the property harm, therefore their loss belongs to the pure economic loss, our country legislates to these loss compensation to stipulate that is reasonable and progressive. This chapter secondly chose two cases in this area to carry on the case analysis with the pure economic loss question, involved the pure economic loss nature harm to the case to be possible to compensate or not has expressed author's some opinions. This chapter thirdly outlines introduced theorists some scholars regarding the pure economic loss question theory viewpoint.
Last chapter is this article's key point. In this chapter, the author firstly proposed to our country present right infringement responsibility law existence's place of some endless consummation own view. For example, firstly, the present right infringement responsibility law stipulation to the third person the creditor who, debtor's loss violates the creditor's rights to create has not given the right infringement damage compensate; Next, in the present right infringement responsibility law had not stipulated that "is nurtured the person living expenses" this item. The author believed that our country may profit from the overseas advanced legislative pattern, causes the pure economic loss to intentionally and the gross negligence violation creditor's rights to infringe upon the right the law protection, simultaneously, should, in clears off is nurtured between the person living expenses and in the death indemnity relations foundation, performs the careful stipulation to both. Next, the pure economic loss's protection will simultaneously involve to the law of contract and the right infringement responsibility method setting range overlapping question, the author believed that should delimit a boundary to both setting range, will enable two laws to protect the civil subject compatibly the benefit. Finally, the author proposed will be pure an economic loss word to introduce our country to infringe upon the right the responsibility method approximate tentative plan, and put forward some proposals to the pure economic loss's typological protection.
引文
1[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第9页。
2王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997,第214页。
3[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第9页。
4[德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.焦美华译.张新宝校.欧洲比较侵行为权法(下卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001,第33-34页。
5张民安.因侵犯他人纯经济损失而承担的过失侵权责任.民商法论丛(第25卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2002,第230页。
6梁慧星.民商法论丛(第28卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第647页。
7[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第4页。
8李岩.纯粹经济损失法益性质之界定[J].沈阳师范大学学报.2008(1),第29页。
9曾世雄.民法总则之现在与未来[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001,第10页。
10靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2),第100页。
11田韶华、刘改娟.纯经济损失特征、保护模式及在我国的适用现状[J].产业与科技论坛,2008(9),第127页。
12张新宝、李倩.纯粹经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择.中国私法网2010年2月9日。
13胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第105页。
14[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第5页。
15靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2),第99页。
16张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005,第103页。
17王利明.侵权行为法研究(上卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,第214页。
18梁慧星.民商法论丛(28)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第648页。
19邱琦.纯粹经济上损失之研究[D].台湾大学,2002。
20张新宝张小义：“论纯粹经济损失的几个基本问题”,中国私法网2008,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm.
21游文静.纯粹经济损失类型化分析[J].法制与经济,2006(12),第33页。
22郭明龙.对‘第三人侵害债权’的理论反思[J].新疆社会科学,2007(6),第76页。
23罗结珍.法国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第1073页。
24[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第93页。
25Case, Le Ch.20 December 1960, D.1961.141, note Esmein.
26包月梅.纯粹经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,第16页。
27王利明.侵权法一般条款的保护范围[J].法学家,2009(3),第20页。
28陈卫佐.德国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,第265页。
29张湘兰、朱强.论纯经济损失的侵权责任——从欧洲比较法展开[J].时代法学,2004(5),第85页。
30[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第104页。
31[美]肯尼斯.S.亚伯拉罕、[美]阿尔伯特.C.泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译.侵权法重述——纲要[M].北京：法律出版社,2006,第179页。
32[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第71页。
33章英杰、李洁.论纯粹经济上损失的过失侵权责任[J].当代法学,2003(7),第28页。
34胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第110页。
35张民安.民商法学家(第一卷)[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2005,第401页。
36廖朵朵.纯经济性损失的侵权赔偿责任[J].政法学刊,2005(4),第34页。
37[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第166页。
38约翰.库克.侵权行为法(影印本)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第616页。
39蝴蝶效应：一只南美洲亚马孙河流域热带雨林中的蝴蝶,偶尔扇动几下翅膀,可能在两周后引起美国德克萨斯的一场龙卷风。此效应说明,事物发展的结果,对初始条件具有极为敏感的依赖性,初始条件的极小偏差,将会引起结果的极大差异。
40[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第14页。
41胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第82页。
42唐先锋.特殊领域侵权行为专题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008,第266、267页。
43包月梅.纯粹经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,第18页。
44王利明.民法.侵权行为法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1995,第326页。
45张新宝张小义：“论纯粹经济损失的几个基本问题”,中国私法网,2008,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm.
46郭琛.对我国产品责任损害赔偿制度的理论探讨——从纯经济损失排除规则说起[J].宁夏大学学报,2008(1),第57页。
47王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由·侵权行为编[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第350页。
48蒋大兴.公司法律报告[M].北京：中信出版社,2003,第248页。
50杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004,第636页。
51程啸.侵权行为法总论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007,第474页。
52杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004,第165页。
53王利明.侵权法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,第2页。
54张新宝李倩,“纯粹经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择”,中国私法网2010,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20100209-190119.htm.
55张文显.法理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003,第114页。
56魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007,第671页。
[1]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[2][意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明.欧洲法中的的纯经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[3][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.焦美华译,张新宝校.欧洲比较侵行为权法(下卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.
[4]张民安.因侵犯他人纯经济损失而承担的过失侵权责任.民商法论丛(第25卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[5]梁慧星.民商法论丛(第28卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[6]曾世雄.民法总则之现在与未来[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[8]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[9]王利明.侵权行为法研究(上卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[10]罗结珍.法国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[11]陈卫佐.德国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[12][美]肯尼斯.S.亚伯拉罕、[美]阿尔伯特.C.泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译.侵权法重述——纲要[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[13]John Cooke,5th Edition[M]. LAW PRESS,2003.
[14]唐先锋.特殊领域侵权行为专题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[15]王利明.民法.侵权行为法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1995.
[16]张民安.民商法学家(第一卷)[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2005.
[17]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由·侵权行为编[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[18]蒋大兴.公司法律报告[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[19]杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004.
[20]程啸.侵权行为法总论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[21]王利明.侵权法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[22]张文显.法理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003.
[23]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[1]李岩.纯经济损失法益性质之界定[J].沈阳师范大学学报.2008(1).
[2]靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2).
[3]田韶华、刘改娟.纯经济损失特征、保护模式及在我国的适用现状[J].载于产业与科技论坛,2008(9).
[4]游文静.纯经济损失类型化分析[J].法制与经济,2006(12).
[5]郭明龙.对‘第三人侵害债权’的理论反思[J].新疆社会科学,2007(6).
[6]张湘兰、朱强.论纯经济损失的侵权责任——从欧洲比较法展开[J].时代法学,2004(5).
[7]章英杰、李洁.论纯粹经济上损失的过失侵权责任[J].当代法学,2003(7).
[8]廖朵朵.纯经济性损失的侵权赔偿责任[J].政法学刊,2005(4).
[9]郭琛.对我国产品责任损害赔偿制度的理论探讨——从纯经济损失排除规则说起[J].宁夏大学学报,2008(1).
[10]王利明.侵权法一般条款的保护范围[J].法学家,2009(3).
[1]邱琦.纯粹经济上损失之研究[D].台湾.台湾大学,2002。
[2]包月梅.纯经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,2007.
[3]李茜.专家不实陈述对第三人的民事责任[D].四川.西南财经大学,2006.
[4]马君.过失侵权下的纯经济损失因果关系研究[D].福建.厦门大学,2008.
[5]毛占全.侵权法上的过失致人纯经济损失研究[D].山东.山东大学,2008.
[6]尹建平.论纯经济损失赔偿制度[D].北京.对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[7]郝志宏.论美国侵权法中经济损失规则的适用[D].北京.对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[1]张新宝、李倩.纯经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择[J/OL].2010.http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20100209-190119.htm
[2]张新宝张小义.论纯经济损失的几个基本问题[J/OL].2008http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm
2王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997,第214页。
3[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第9页。
4[德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.焦美华译.张新宝校.欧洲比较侵行为权法(下卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001,第33-34页。
5张民安.因侵犯他人纯经济损失而承担的过失侵权责任.民商法论丛(第25卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2002,第230页。
6梁慧星.民商法论丛(第28卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第647页。
7[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第4页。
8李岩.纯粹经济损失法益性质之界定[J].沈阳师范大学学报.2008(1),第29页。
9曾世雄.民法总则之现在与未来[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001,第10页。
10靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2),第100页。
11田韶华、刘改娟.纯经济损失特征、保护模式及在我国的适用现状[J].产业与科技论坛,2008(9),第127页。
12张新宝、李倩.纯粹经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择.中国私法网2010年2月9日。
13胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第105页。
14[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第5页。
15靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2),第99页。
16张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005,第103页。
17王利明.侵权行为法研究(上卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,第214页。
18梁慧星.民商法论丛(28)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第648页。
19邱琦.纯粹经济上损失之研究[D].台湾大学,2002。
20张新宝张小义：“论纯粹经济损失的几个基本问题”,中国私法网2008,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm.
21游文静.纯粹经济损失类型化分析[J].法制与经济,2006(12),第33页。
22郭明龙.对‘第三人侵害债权’的理论反思[J].新疆社会科学,2007(6),第76页。
23罗结珍.法国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第1073页。
24[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第93页。
25Case, Le Ch.20 December 1960, D.1961.141, note Esmein.
26包月梅.纯粹经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,第16页。
27王利明.侵权法一般条款的保护范围[J].法学家,2009(3),第20页。
28陈卫佐.德国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2004,第265页。
29张湘兰、朱强.论纯经济损失的侵权责任——从欧洲比较法展开[J].时代法学,2004(5),第85页。
30[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第104页。
31[美]肯尼斯.S.亚伯拉罕、[美]阿尔伯特.C.泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译.侵权法重述——纲要[M].北京：法律出版社,2006,第179页。
32[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第71页。
33章英杰、李洁.论纯粹经济上损失的过失侵权责任[J].当代法学,2003(7),第28页。
34胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第110页。
35张民安.民商法学家(第一卷)[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2005,第401页。
36廖朵朵.纯经济性损失的侵权赔偿责任[J].政法学刊,2005(4),第34页。
37[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第166页。
38约翰.库克.侵权行为法(影印本)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003,第616页。
39蝴蝶效应：一只南美洲亚马孙河流域热带雨林中的蝴蝶,偶尔扇动几下翅膀,可能在两周后引起美国德克萨斯的一场龙卷风。此效应说明,事物发展的结果,对初始条件具有极为敏感的依赖性,初始条件的极小偏差,将会引起结果的极大差异。
40[意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编,张小义、钟洪明译.欧洲法中的的纯粹经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第14页。
41胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008,第82页。
42唐先锋.特殊领域侵权行为专题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008,第266、267页。
43包月梅.纯粹经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,第18页。
44王利明.民法.侵权行为法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1995,第326页。
45张新宝张小义：“论纯粹经济损失的几个基本问题”,中国私法网,2008,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm.
46郭琛.对我国产品责任损害赔偿制度的理论探讨——从纯经济损失排除规则说起[J].宁夏大学学报,2008(1),第57页。
47王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由·侵权行为编[M].北京：法律出版社,2005,第350页。
48蒋大兴.公司法律报告[M].北京：中信出版社,2003,第248页。
50杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004,第636页。
51程啸.侵权行为法总论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007,第474页。
52杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004,第165页。
53王利明.侵权法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004,第2页。
54张新宝李倩,“纯粹经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择”,中国私法网2010,http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20100209-190119.htm.
55张文显.法理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003,第114页。
56魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007,第671页。
[1]王泽鉴.民法学说与判例研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997.
[2][意]毛罗.布萨尼、[美]弗农.瓦伦丁.帕尔默主编.张小义、钟洪明.欧洲法中的的纯经济损失[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[3][德]克雷斯蒂安·冯·巴尔.焦美华译,张新宝校.欧洲比较侵行为权法(下卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2001.
[4]张民安.因侵犯他人纯经济损失而承担的过失侵权责任.民商法论丛(第25卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2002.
[5]梁慧星.民商法论丛(第28卷)[M].北京：法律出版社,2003.
[6]曾世雄.民法总则之现在与未来[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2001.
[7]胡雪梅.英国侵权法[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[8]张新宝.侵权责任法原理[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[9]王利明.侵权行为法研究(上卷)[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[10]罗结珍.法国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[11]陈卫佐.德国民法典[M].北京：法律出版社,2004.
[12][美]肯尼斯.S.亚伯拉罕、[美]阿尔伯特.C.泰特选编,许传玺、石宏等译.侵权法重述——纲要[M].北京：法律出版社,2006.
[13]John Cooke,
[14]唐先锋.特殊领域侵权行为专题研究[M].北京：法律出版社,2008.
[15]王利明.民法.侵权行为法[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,1995.
[16]张民安.民商法学家(第一卷)[M].广州：中山大学出版社,2005.
[17]王利明.中国民法典学者建议稿及立法理由·侵权行为编[M].北京：法律出版社,2005.
[18]蒋大兴.公司法律报告[M].北京：中信出版社,2003.
[19]杨立新.侵权法论[M].北京：人民法院出版社,2004.
[20]程啸.侵权行为法总论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[21]王利明.侵权法论[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[22]张文显.法理学[M].北京：高等教育出版社,2003.
[23]魏振瀛.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社,2007.
[1]李岩.纯经济损失法益性质之界定[J].沈阳师范大学学报.2008(1).
[2]靳羽.纯经济损失概念分析[J].河南教育学院学报,2005(2).
[3]田韶华、刘改娟.纯经济损失特征、保护模式及在我国的适用现状[J].载于产业与科技论坛,2008(9).
[4]游文静.纯经济损失类型化分析[J].法制与经济,2006(12).
[5]郭明龙.对‘第三人侵害债权’的理论反思[J].新疆社会科学,2007(6).
[6]张湘兰、朱强.论纯经济损失的侵权责任——从欧洲比较法展开[J].时代法学,2004(5).
[7]章英杰、李洁.论纯粹经济上损失的过失侵权责任[J].当代法学,2003(7).
[8]廖朵朵.纯经济性损失的侵权赔偿责任[J].政法学刊,2005(4).
[9]郭琛.对我国产品责任损害赔偿制度的理论探讨——从纯经济损失排除规则说起[J].宁夏大学学报,2008(1).
[10]王利明.侵权法一般条款的保护范围[J].法学家,2009(3).
[1]邱琦.纯粹经济上损失之研究[D].台湾.台湾大学,2002。
[2]包月梅.纯经济损失赔偿制度研究[D].北京.北京工商大学,2007.
[3]李茜.专家不实陈述对第三人的民事责任[D].四川.西南财经大学,2006.
[4]马君.过失侵权下的纯经济损失因果关系研究[D].福建.厦门大学,2008.
[5]毛占全.侵权法上的过失致人纯经济损失研究[D].山东.山东大学,2008.
[6]尹建平.论纯经济损失赔偿制度[D].北京.对外经济贸易大学,2007.
[7]郝志宏.论美国侵权法中经济损失规则的适用[D].北京.对外经济贸易大学,2006.
[1]张新宝、李倩.纯经济损失赔偿规则：理论、实践及立法选择[J/OL].2010.http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20100209-190119.htm
[2]张新宝张小义.论纯经济损失的几个基本问题[J/OL].2008http://www.privatelaw.com.cn/new2004/shtml/20080713-223800.htm