某质量技术监督局与某公司房屋买卖合同纠纷案分析

发布时间：2018-08-24 12:29

【摘要】：缔约阶段由于合同当事人违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定而导致合同失效致使合同相对方因合理信赖而导致的利益遭受损失的法律救济情况，我国目前立法对此并没有条文明确规定，，只是一些条文有比较笼统的涉及，比如《合同法》第58条（合同无效或者被撤销后的法律后果）、第42条（缔约过失），造成在我国的司法实务中，法院对相关问题具体操作难度很大。而且，现行合同法对缔约阶段的界定也比较模糊，对信赖责任如何判断归属也困难重重，因此，在更为广义的层面上探讨和发掘信赖利益的内涵并完善信赖利益保护机制，是十分必要的。样本案件是安徽高级法院判处的关于房地产所涉土地为划拨性质致使合同无效产生的信赖利益受损案,是缔约过失责任和信赖利益受损的一起典型案例。本案有四个争议焦点：一是案件中的合同是否为无效合同；二是合同无效是否适用缔约过失责任；三是案件责任是否包括信赖利益受损；四是案件里的赔偿范围怎样确定。基于法院认定的事实和我国现行法律规定，对于违反法律强制性规定的合同只有在违反效力性强制性规范时才能认定为是无效合同，只是违反了管理性规范时并不当然认定是无效的。对于适用缔约过失责任应该满足四个条件才能成立，具体为缔约当事人必须是违反了先合同义务、违反先合同义务的当事人必须是有过错的、对方当事人受有损害、违反行为和损害结果之间有因果联系。由于加害人和受害方对于信赖利益受损而要承担的责任有各自不同的看法，所以认定赔偿标准必须要考虑到双方在主观上是不是有过错，并且信赖利益受到损害，赔偿的范围不应只局限于履行利益范畴，而是应该根据加害人对于信赖利益损害的发生主观上是否有比较严重的过错来判断是不是在履行利益的范围内赔偿。
[Abstract]:The legal relief for the loss of interests caused by reasonable trust of the relative party of the contract due to the mandatory provisions of the contract's violation of the law and administrative regulations during the contracting period, The current legislation of our country does not explicitly provide for this, but some provisions are more general in nature. For example, Article 58 of the contract Law (the legal consequences of nullity or rescission of the contract) and Article 42 of the contract Law (the fault of contracting) result in the difficulty of the courts in the specific operation of the relevant issues in the judicial practice of our country. Moreover, the current contract law also has a vague definition of the contracting stage, and it is difficult to judge the attribution of trust responsibility. Therefore, it is difficult to explore and explore the connotation of trust interest and perfect the protection mechanism of trust interest on a broader level. It is very necessary. The sample case is a case of trust interest damage caused by the transfer nature of the land involved in real estate, which is decided by the Anhui High Court. It is a typical case of the damage to the liability for negligence in the contract and the loss of the trust interest. There are four controversial points in this case: one is whether the contract in the case is invalid; the other is whether the contract is invalid or not; the third is whether the liability of the case includes the loss of trust interests; and the fourth, how to determine the scope of compensation in the case. Based on the facts found by the court and the current laws of our country, a contract that violates the mandatory provisions of the law can only be recognized as invalid if it violates the peremptory norm of validity. It is not a matter of course that a violation of a regulatory norm is invalid. For the application of the liability for fault in concluding a treaty, four conditions should be satisfied. In particular, the contracting party must be in breach of the prior contract obligation, and the party violating the prior contract obligation must be at fault, and the other party has been damaged. There is a causal link between the violation and the result of the damage. Since the injured party and the injured party have different views on the liability for the loss of the trust interest, the criteria for determining compensation must take into account whether the two parties have subjective fault, and that the trust interest has been damaged. The scope of compensation should not be limited to the scope of performing interests, but should be judged according to whether or not the injure of trust interests has a relatively serious fault subjectively, and whether the compensation is within the scope of performing interests.
【学位授予单位】：湖南大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】