先合同说明义务违反视角下的缔约过失与瑕疵担保关系论——德国法的启示与中国法的构造

发布时间：2018-05-06 08:50

本文选题：说明义务 + 缔约过失责任　；参考：《政治与法律》2014年11期

【摘要】：在缔约过程中,一方当事人违反先合同说明义务时,往往存在缔约过失责任与瑕疵担保责任两种救济路径,二者关系的厘清成为归责的前提。在德国旧债法中,对瑕疵的界定相对较窄。当故意违反说明义务时,缔约过失责任与瑕疵担保责任之间存在请求权竞合抑或选择竞合,而在过失的情形,瑕疵担保责任应优先适用。在权利瑕疵和瑕疵结果损害的情况下,并不存在瑕疵担保责任的优先。在德国新债法中,瑕疵的含义更为广泛。当故意违反说明义务时,理论上存在两种对立的处理方案,未有定论。瑕疵担保责任的优势蔓延到权利瑕疵与瑕疵结果损害的情形。就我国法而言,在解释论的背景下,当说明义务人为故意时,应确定两种责任存在请求权竞合或者选择竞合的可能性。对瑕疵应作广义理解,以弥补缔约过失责任在规制过失违反说明义务上的先天不足。对于权利瑕疵与瑕疵结果损害,除了故意情形之外,应坚持瑕疵担保责任的优先适用。
[Abstract]:In the process of contracting, when a party violates the obligation to explain the prior contract, there are usually two kinds of relief paths: the liability of fault in contract and the liability of guarantee for defects, and the clarification of the relationship between the two becomes the premise of imputation. In the old German debt law, the definition of defects is relatively narrow. When the obligation of explanation is violated on purpose, there is a concurrence of claim or choice between the liability of fault in conclusion and the liability of guarantee for defects, and in the case of fault, the liability of guarantee for defects should be applied first. In the case of defect of right and damage of defective result, there is no priority of warranty liability for defect. In Germany's new debt law, the meaning of defects is broader. When deliberately violating the obligation of explanation, there are two opposite solutions in theory. The advantage of liability for warranty of defects extends to the situation of defects of rights and damages of defective results. As far as the law of our country is concerned, under the background of the theory of interpretation, when the obligor of explanation is intentional, the possibility of the two kinds of liability being competing for right of claim or opting for concurrence should be determined. The defects should be understood broadly in order to make up for the inherent deficiency in the regulation of fault breach of explanation. As for the defect of right and the damage of defective result, except the intentional situation, we should insist on the prior application of the liability for the warranty of defect.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【基金】：国家留学基金资助
【分类号】：D951.6;DD913;D923.6

【相似文献】