信赖利益赔偿以履行利益为限吗——从一般命题到局部经验

发布时间：2018-06-22 20:40

本文选题：信赖利益 + 履行利益　；参考：《政治与法律》2017年11期

【摘要】：对于信赖利益赔偿是否以履行利益为限,我国学理上存在着肯定说、否定说与折中说三种学说。其中,肯定说多为规范与实务所采纳。从比较法上的经验来看,除了意思表示错误、无权代理等少数情形,并不将履行利益作为赔偿信赖利益的上限。在我国的司法实践中,在违法合同、恶意磋商、违反预约、欺诈缔约、解约赔偿等领域,法院基本上支持"信赖利益以履行利益为限"这一命题,这一做法值得检讨。对于该命题,不应全然地肯定或否定,而应结合规范目的、可归责性与损害类型三项要素进行综合判断。当法律存在保护信赖损害赔偿义务人的特殊规范目的时,应肯定该命题的适用。除此之外,当义务人的行为构成恶意磋商或者欺诈等具有较强可归责性的情形时,应否定该命题的适用。当义务人的可归责性较弱时,则仅当权利人可证明本来会与义务人订立更为有利的合同时,对信赖损害的赔偿才可不受制于履行利益。在追求非经济目的的合同中,该命题并无适用余地。
[Abstract]:There are three theories in our country: positive theory, negation theory and compromise theory. Among them, certainly say is the norm and practice adopt mostly. From the experience of comparative law, the performance interest is not regarded as the upper limit of the compensation trust interest except for a few cases such as the error of the expression of will and the right to act as agent. In the judicial practice of our country, in the fields of illegal contract, malicious negotiation, breach of appointment, fraudulent contracting, rescission compensation and so on, the court basically supports the proposition that "trust interest is limited by performing interest", which is worth reviewing. The proposition should not be fully affirmed or negated, but should be judged synthetically with three elements: imputability and damage type combined with normative purpose. The application of this proposition should be confirmed when the law has a special normative purpose of protecting the obligor of trust damage compensation. In addition, the application of this proposition should be denied when the obligor's behavior constitutes malicious negotiation or fraud. When the obligor's imputability is weak, only when the obligee can prove that he would have concluded a more favorable contract with the obligor, the compensation for the trust damage can not be subject to the performance interest. In the pursuit of non-economic purposes of the contract, this proposition has no room for application.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】