居间合同中的告知义务研究

发布时间：2019-03-02 18:08

【摘要】：居间合同是居间人向委托人报告订立合同的机会或者提供订立合同的媒介服务，委托人支付相应报酬的合同。随着经济高速发展，居间行业日渐成熟。任何一个合同最终都落实到合同当事人的权利与义务，其中义务尤为重要。居间合同是一种信息服务合同，告知义务占据重要地位，无论是居间人还是委托人，在居间合同履行过程中都占据一定的信息优势，按理应当承担一定的告知义务。但是我国《合同法》对告知义务规定过于抽象、原则，已不能满足实践居间合同的需求。有意思的是，学界对此问题的研究十分匮乏，这或许更凸显了该问题的棘手。文章从居间合同中的信息不对称着手，分析居间合同的本质及其告知义务的事实基础与法理基础，着重论述居间合同中告知义务的主体、对象、内容以及违反该义务的民事责任，试图构建出一个清晰的居间人、委托人告知义务体系。除引言外，文章由四部分构成：第一部分，居间合同中的告知义务之正当性。居间合同区别于其他合同的一个显著特征在于居间合同中的信息不对称现象，且该信息不对称表现为居间人和委托人的双边信息不对称。信息不对称是居间合同成立的基础和前提，其可能引发的双边道德风险要求居间合同当事人承担一定的告知义务。同时，民法中的“帝王条款”诚信原则也渗透到合同法领域，要求居间人和委托人承担告知义务。第二部分，居间合同中的告知义务之特殊性。居间合同并非单纯的信息服务合同，具有信息匹配价值。同时，一方面，居间合同中的告知义务在告知主体、告知内容以及违反的民事责任形式方面不同于其他一般合同中的告知义务；另一方面，居间合同属于委托性质的合同，可以参照委任性合同的规定，却又有别于委任性合同中的委托合同和行纪合同。第三部分，，居间合同中的告知义务之制度架构。这部分分别从告知义务的主体、告知对象、告知内容和告知程度进行分析。不同的居间类型中，居间人承担告知义务的对象有所不同，但不论何种情形，只有营业居间人才承担调查义务，非营业居间人只承担合理的审查义务，且两者都限于“重要事项”。基于《合同法》第425条的扩张解释，委托人只对居间人承担拒绝缔约原因的告知义务。第四部分，违反居间合同中的告知义务之民事责任。围绕我国《合同法》第425条规定的居间人责任，学界和实务界分别出现了关于责任性质、责任构成要件的争议。笔者认为，违反居间合同中的告知义务的责任应当为违约责任，无论主观过错、过失，也不论是否造成实际损害，只要居间人和委托人存在不告知的情形就构成违约，应当承担相应的损害赔偿，但因主观状态的不同，责任范围有所差异。
[Abstract]:The intermediary contract is a contract in which the intermediary reports to the client the opportunity to conclude the contract or provides the media service for the conclusion of the contract, and the client pays the corresponding remuneration. With the rapid development of the economy, the intermediary industry is becoming more and more mature. Any contract is finally implemented into the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract, among which obligations are particularly important. Intermediary contract is an information service contract, the obligation to inform occupies an important position, both mediators and principals occupy a certain information advantage in the process of performance of the intermediary contract, so it is reasonable to assume a certain obligation to inform. However, the stipulations of obligation to inform in contract Law are too abstract and the principle can no longer meet the needs of the practice of mediating contract. Interestingly, academic research on the issue is scarce, which may underscore the thorny nature of the problem. Starting with the asymmetry of information in the intermediary contract, this paper analyzes the essence of the intermediary contract and the factual and legal basis of the obligation of disclosure, and emphatically discusses the subject and object of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Content and civil liability for breach of this obligation, trying to construct a clear intermediary, the duty of informing the client system. In addition to the introduction, the article consists of four parts: the first part, the legitimacy of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. One of the distinct characteristics of mediating contract is the asymmetry of information in mediating contract, and the information asymmetry is characterized by the bilateral information asymmetry of mediating person and client. Information asymmetry is the foundation and premise of the establishment of intermediary contract, which may lead to bilateral moral hazard, which requires the parties to the intermediary contract to assume a certain obligation to inform. At the same time, the principle of "emperor clause" in civil law also permeates the field of contract law, which requires mediators and clients to undertake the obligation of informing. The second part, the particularity of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Intermediary contract is not a simple information service contract, it has information matching value. At the same time, on the one hand, the obligation of notification in the intermediary contract is different from that in other general contracts in the aspects of the main body, the content of notification and the form of civil liability for breach; On the other hand, the intermediary contract is a contract of the nature of entrustment, which can refer to the stipulations of the contract of appointment, but it is different from the contract of commission and the contract of discipline. The third part, the institutional framework of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. This part analyzes the main body, the object, the content and the degree of disclosure respectively. Among the different types of mediators, the objects of the intermediary's obligation to inform are different, but in any case, only the business mediators bear the duty of investigation, and the non-business mediators only undertake the reasonable obligation of examination. And both are limited to "important matters". Based on the expanded interpretation of Clause 425 of contract Law, the client only assumes the obligation to inform the mediators of the reasons for refusing to conclude the contract. The fourth part, the civil liability for breach of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract. Concerning the intermediary liability stipulated in Article 425 of the contract Law of our country, there are disputes about the nature of responsibility and the elements of liability in academic and practical circles respectively. The author believes that the liability for breach of the obligation of disclosure in the intermediary contract should be the liability for breach of contract, regardless of subjective fault, negligence, whether or not actual damage is caused, as long as the intermediary and the client do not inform the case constitutes a breach of contract, Should bear the corresponding damages, but due to the different subjective state, the scope of responsibility is different.
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】