好意施惠研究

发布时间：2018-04-06 04:15

本文选题：好意施惠　切入点：定性　出处：《郑州大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 法律与道德之间总是存在某种张力,二者都试图将某些领域纳入自己的调整范围,好意施惠就是其中之一。在请友人吃饭、邀同学出游、搭同事便车、代为寄投信件等情形中,好意施惠人与对方通过吃饭、出游等活动增进了情谊,深化了感情,本应属于道德调整。但是,在好意施惠人未实施好意施惠或在好意施惠时造成对方人身或财产损害,就会涉及到是否承担违约责任或侵权责任的问题。要妥善地解决以上问题,好意施惠的定性至关重要。对于好意施惠的性质,传统理论认为是一种不受法律约束的行为,新近又产生了“法律行为说”、“合同说”、“事实行为说”与“无因管理说”。新兴的各种学说虽有所不同,但都是为了将好意施惠纳入法律调整范畴所做的努力。其实,好意施惠指的是不产生法律效果的那一部分行为,其不具有受法律约束的意思表示。在模棱两可的情形,好意施惠可能被认为是合同,但这只说明了特定情况下好意施惠与合同存在重合之处而并非好意施惠均属于合同。同样,好意施惠也不能被事实行为所涵盖。对于在实践中如何判断一种行为是好意施惠还是合同,主要通过是否具备受法律上拘束的意思表示、斟酌交易惯例与诚实信用原则及当事人利益状态的主客观标准来认定,文章对该标准进行了细化。既然好意施惠不属于法律行为或合同,就不会产生违约责任尤其是不真正违约金,一般而言也不会产生信赖利益赔偿。对于好意施惠排除不当得利请求权的依据,可以从自然债务理论中进行寻找。关键的问题是好意施惠可否产生侵权责任。对此,要区分好意施惠和好意施惠过程中产生的侵权行为,是后者而并非好意施惠本身导致了侵权责任的产生。但好意施惠仍可作为减免侵权责任的依据,主要是通过类推适用与好意施惠关系相类似的无偿合同关系中有关责任减免的规定。在难以通过相类似的无偿合同关系寻求责任减轻时,相应地减轻好意施惠人的责任。对于人身损害,在好意施惠人具有具体轻过失时,要求其承担责任；对于财产损害,在好意施惠人具有故意或重大过失时,要求其承担责任。任何理论上的探讨只有落脚于本国的实践才具有实益。因此,文章最后从我国实践中的纠纷出发,以解释论为视角,从现行立法中寻找对好意施惠侵权进行法律规制的实然规范与请求权基础,尽量在现有法律框架内寻求救济受害人的办法。同时,以立法论为视角,建议对一些典型的好意施惠关系如“好意同乘”做出相应的具体规定,以便于司法实践的操作。
[Abstract]:There is always a tension between law and morality.In the case of inviting friends to dinner, inviting students to go out for a trip, hitchhiking with colleagues, sending letters on behalf of others, and so on, such activities as having dinner and going out with each other have enhanced friendship and deepened feelings, which should have been a moral adjustment.However, the question of whether to bear the liability for breach of contract or tort will be involved in causing personal or property damage to the other party when the good benefactor fails to do so.In order to properly solve the above problems, the characterization of good intentions is essential.As for the nature of kindness and favor, the traditional theory regards it as an act which is not bound by law, and has recently produced "legal act theory", "contract theory", "factual behavior theory" and "management without cause".The emerging theories, though different, are all an effort to bring kindness and favor into the realm of legal adjustment.In fact, kindness refers to that part of the act that does not produce legal effects and does not have the meaning of being bound by law.In ambiguous cases, goodwill may be regarded as a contract, but it only shows that there is a coincidence between good will and the contract in a given case, not that the good will is a contract.Similarly, kindness is not covered by the act of fact.In practice, how to judge whether an act is a good favor or a contract is mainly determined by whether there is an expression of intention bound by law, considering the principles of transaction practice, good faith and good faith, and the subjective and objective criteria of the interests of the parties.This article has carried on the elaboration to this standard.Since goodwill is not a legal act or contract, there will be no liability for breach of contract, especially no true liquidated damages, and generally no compensation for trust interests.The theory of natural debt can be used to find out the basis of excluding the right of unjust enrichment.The key question is whether the good will gives rise to tort liability.To this end, it is the latter, not the well-intentioned, which leads to the tort liability, which should be distinguished between the good favor and the good favor.However, kindness can still be used as the basis for the relief of tort liability, mainly by analogy to apply the provisions on liability relief in the pro bono contractual relationship similar to that of goodwill and favor.When it is difficult to seek liability mitigation through a similar pro bono contractual relationship, the liability of the benevolent person shall be reduced accordingly.In case of personal injury, liability is required when a person of good intention has a specific minor fault, and when a person has intentional or gross negligence in case of property damage, he is required to be held liable.Any theoretical discussion can only be beneficial if one is based in his own country's practice.Therefore, from the point of view of the theory of interpretation, the article finally looks for the actual norms and the basis of the right of claim for the legal regulation of well-intentioned infringement in the current legislation from the point of view of the disputes in the practice of our country.Try to find remedies for victims within the existing legal framework.At the same time, from the perspective of legislation theory, it is suggested that some typical well-intentioned relations of favour, such as "good intentions and multiplications", should be specified in order to facilitate the operation of judicial practice.
【学位授予单位】：郑州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D913

【引证文献】