英美法上不当得利返还责任的独立性探析

发布时间：2018-04-21 05:48

本文选题：返还责任 + 独立性　；参考：《环球法律评论》2015年03期

【摘要】：不当得利返还责任直到20世纪30年代才在英美法上取得了相对独立的地位,这一点不同于大陆法系,其背后的原因一方面是因为现代商业社会中财产非自愿性转让的几率增加,因此矫正因财产非自愿转让产生的不当得利的需求变得非常强烈;另一方面是传统的法学理论解释能力不足,使得返还责任与不当得利相应规则的适用空间有限。这两方面因素相互影响共同促成了返还责任的独立及其类型化发展。对于返还责任的独立,英美法学者分别提出了大合同概念理论、维护财产权理论、衡平法上的显失公平理论进行激烈的批判,这些理论争鸣有些是由于英美法自身传统造成的,有些则是两大法系共有的问题,反映了返还责任在私法复杂格局中的独特地位。英美法这一重大制度的理论变迁对我国民法典编纂中相关规则的构造具有一定启示。
[Abstract]:It was not until the 1930s that the liability for improper enrichment returned was relatively independent in common law, which is different from the civil law system. The reason behind it is, on the one hand, the increasing probability of involuntary transfer of property in modern commercial society. Therefore, the demand for correction of improper enrichment caused by involuntary transfer of property becomes very strong; on the other hand, the traditional legal theory has insufficient interpretation ability, which makes the applicable space of the corresponding rules of return liability and improper enrichment limited. These two factors influence each other and together contribute to the independent and typed development of liability for return. As for the independence of liability for return, British and American law scholars have put forward the theory of big contract concept, the theory of safeguarding property rights and the theory of equity, which are fiercely criticized. Some of these theories are caused by the tradition of Anglo-American law. Some are common to the two legal systems, reflecting the unique position of liability for return in the complex structure of private law. The theoretical changes of Anglo-American law have some implications for the construction of relevant rules in the compilation of civil code.
【作者单位】：中山大学法学院;
【分类号】：D913

【相似文献】