纯粹经济损失的赔偿机制探析

发布时间：2018-01-26 09:04

本文关键词： 纯粹经济损失责任排除规则政策考量类型化关系　出处：《华东政法大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：纯粹经济损失的赔偿问题是比较法上的热点，国外关于此问题已著作颇丰，而国内的理论则稍显空白，未得到应有的重视。随着损害类型的趋于多样，纯粹经济损失必然会成为困扰我国立法者和司法者的问题，关于赔偿界限的探索已迫在眉睫。本文从基础理论入手，着重分析比较法上各国的模式，并引入两种试图确立责任界限的方法，望能对我国理想模式的构建提供有益见解。文章的第一部分首先分析了纯粹经济损失的概念，这是笔者论述其他问题的前提。笔者认为，从法律上权利的角度界定纯粹经济损失较之从受侵害的对象角度界定更为适合，可以避免疏漏。纯粹经济损失指的是非因绝对权受侵害而发生的财产上的损害（不利益）。在得出概念之后，将纯粹经济损失与间接经济损失进行概念辨析，认为两者技术性的区分只是为了满足责任排除规则的需要，两者的界限并非泾渭分明，由此折射出责任排除规则的漏洞之处。其后，，对纯粹经济损失已有的两种分类进行说明，指出对其类型化虽然困难，却有助于确定责任界限。文章的第二部分着重从比较法角度探析各国关于纯粹经济损失的赔偿机制。比较法上主要有三种模式，分别是以法国为代表的开放主义模式、以德国为代表的保守主义模式以及以英国为代表的实用主义模式。在介绍了三种模式之后，分析影响责任成立的政策考量因素。政策考量因素本身的逻辑漏洞等问题反映出责任排除规则的不足，这也是采该规则的国家积极创设例外的原因。文章的第三部分意在分析我国关于纯粹经济损失赔偿的立法规定和司法实践。立法上，对《民法通则》第106条第2款中的“财产”以及《侵权责任法》中第2条第1款中的“民事权益”，应解释为包括纯粹经济损失，但对其要采纳比一般侵害绝对权行为更为严格的责任构成要件。司法上，我国已有涉及纯粹经济损失的案例，法院的基本态度是，若特别法或司法解释中规定了赔偿，则会判令被告承担责任，若无特别法或司法解释的规定，则一般会否定被告责任。文章的第四部分意在构建我国关于纯粹经济损失赔偿的理想模式。首先，在救济路径的选择上，《侵权责任法》已经提供了救济可能性，无需再扩充合同法。其次，在具体司法层面，引进责任构成动态系统以及类型化的方法，对于确立责任界限实有帮助。责任构成动态系统从最宏观层面列举影响责任成立的十大因素，其较之政策考量因素更为具体，便于法官操作。而类型化则有助于法官同案同判。笔者认为，已有的类型化对于确立责任界限并不有用，因而笔者尝试从关系视角进行类型化操作，从加害人与受害人关系的远近入手，确立责任界限。最后，笔者认为，要充分发挥最高人民法院指导性案例的作用，将两种方法结合适用。
[Abstract]:Compensation for pure economic losses is a hot topic in comparative law. Foreign countries have done a lot of work on this issue, but the domestic theory is slightly blank and has not received due attention. With the variety of damage types. Pure economic loss will inevitably become a problem that puzzles our legislators and judiciaries, and it is urgent to explore the limits of compensation. This paper starts with the basic theory and focuses on the analysis of the models of countries in the comparative law. By introducing two methods to establish the limits of responsibility, we hope to provide useful insights for the construction of ideal models in China. The first part of the article first analyzes the concept of pure economic loss, which is the premise of the author to discuss other issues. It is more appropriate to define pure economic loss from the angle of legal rights than from the point of view of the object of infringement. Pure economic loss refers to property damage caused by the infringement of absolute right or wrong. After getting the concept, the concept of pure economic loss and indirect economic loss is analyzed. It is believed that the technical distinction between the two is only to meet the need of the rules of exclusion of liability, and the boundary between the two is not distinct, which reflects the loopholes of the rules of liability exclusion. This paper explains the two kinds of classification of pure economic loss, and points out that the classification of pure economic loss is difficult, but it is helpful to determine the limit of responsibility. The second part of the article focuses on analyzing the compensation mechanism of pure economic loss in various countries from the perspective of comparative law. There are three main modes in comparative law, one of which is the open mode represented by France. The model of conservatism represented by Germany and the model of pragmatism represented by Britain. This paper analyzes the policy factors that influence the establishment of liability. The problems such as the loopholes of policy considerations itself reflect the deficiency of the rule of exclusion of responsibility, which is also the reason why the countries adopting the rules actively create exceptions. The third part of the article is intended to analyze the legislative provisions and judicial practice of compensation for pure economic losses in China. The "property" in Article 106, paragraph 2, of the General principles of Civil Law, and the "civil rights and interests" in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the Tort liability Law should be interpreted to include purely economic losses. However, it should adopt more strict elements of liability than the general infringement of absolute rights. Judicially, there have been cases involving pure economic loss in our country, and the basic attitude of the court is. If compensation is provided for in the Lex specialis or judicial interpretation, the defendant will be ordered to bear responsibility, and if there is no provision in the Lex specialis or judicial interpretation, the defendant's liability will generally be negated. The 4th part of the article is intended to construct the ideal model of pure economic loss compensation in China. First of all, in the choice of relief path, the Tort liability Law has provided the possibility of relief. There is no need to expand the contract law. Secondly, in the specific judicial level, the introduction of liability constitutes a dynamic system as well as the type of method. It is helpful to establish the limits of responsibility. The dynamic system of responsibility lists the ten factors that influence the establishment of responsibility from the most macroscopic level, which is more specific than the factors of policy consideration. The author thinks that the existing typology is not useful to establish the limits of responsibility, so the author tries to type operation from the angle of relationship. Starting from the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim, the author establishes the limit of responsibility. Finally, the author thinks that the two methods should be combined to give full play to the guiding case of the Supreme people's Court.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D913

【参考文献】