对合同法严格责任原则的质疑

发布时间：2018-05-12 17:09

本文选题：严格责任原则 + 矫枉过正　；参考：《学术界》2002年06期

【摘要】：合同法立法者原只想将传统的或暗或明的过错责任原则改为明定的过错推定责任原则。然而有些学者眼见更为新潮已为英美民法及一些国际公约渐用的严格责任原则 ,便建议追潮 ,终为新法吸纳。其理由是民法通则及一些原单行合同法未明定过错责任原则 ,英美民法及不少公约正流行 ,如此则降低诉讼成本 ,较符违约责任本质等。对此 ,本文提出质疑 ,认为暗定严格责任原则是一种矫枉过正的无赖的法技术和法选择 ,不利知法、守法和司法 ,严格责任原则不为大陆法系大多国家目前立法所采信 ,暗定亦不是英美民法及公约之所为。建议将违约责任明确定为过错推定责任原则 ,以合现情 ,以符法之明确性的本质要求。
[Abstract]:The legislator of contract law only intended to change the traditional or implicit or explicit fault liability principle into the explicit fault presumption liability principle. However, some scholars, seeing that the new trend has become the principle of strict liability which has been gradually used in the Anglo-American civil law and some international conventions, have suggested that the trend should be pursued and eventually absorbed by the new law. The reason is that the general principles of civil law and some original single-contract law do not specify the principle of fault liability, the Anglo-American civil law and many conventions are popular, thus reducing the cost of litigation, more consistent with the nature of liability for breach of contract, and so on. In this paper, the author holds that the principle of implicit strict liability is a kind of overcorrected and rogue legal technique and choice, which is unfavorable to the understanding of law, abiding by the law and judicature. The principle of strict liability is not accepted by the current legislation of most countries in the civil law system, nor is it implied by the Anglo-American civil law and conventions. It is suggested that the liability for breach of contract should be defined as the principle of presumption of fault and the essential requirement of certainty of law.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】