试论重大误解及其在拍卖合同中的适用

发布时间：2018-04-17 21:15

本文选题：重大误解 + 错误　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：由于工作的关系，笔者经常会接触拍卖合同纠纷的诉讼案件，其中有许多案例中，买受人向法院主张要求因重大误解而撤销拍卖合同。刚经手这些案件时，笔者曾想当然地认为拍卖合同与重大误解制度是不相容的，但在检索判例的过程中，笔者发现了不少因重大误解最终撤销拍卖合同效力的法院判决，其中也有最高院的公告案例。为了深入探究重大误解在拍卖合同中的适用问题，笔者萌生了撰写本文的想法。本文主文共分为三个部分，第一部分对重大误解制度的概念进行介绍与分析。首先，文章援引了其他学者对于重大误解词源的历史沿革的考证，介绍了重大误解作为一个法律术语在前苏联民法及我国解放初期民法理论研究与实践中的本义，通过重大误解在历史上的含义与现代含义的区别，，阐述了后文以德国民法之“错误”制度特有的错误归类法来分析重大误解制度的原因。紧接着，文章详细介绍了德国民法上的“错误”制度以及其他传统大陆法系国家、英美法系国家、国际条约对“错误”制度的立法发展。之后，本文通过比较法的研究方法，以错误制度为参照，对重大误解制度在实然法上的含义及特征进行了阐述。本文第二部分简要分析了拍卖合同在我国法律下的内涵外延，藉此确定了讨论的范围。其次本文通过将拍卖合同与买卖合同及招投标合同进行比较分析，具体归纳了拍卖合同与重大误解构成要件及例外情形有关的特征。为后文观点的提出进行了铺陈。本文第三部分首先就意思表示制度研究领域内的经典案例“特里尔葡萄酒拍卖会案”进行了重新解读，分别介绍了民法与商法两种不同视角审视该案例所得出的不同结论。其次，文章对有关重大误解在拍卖合同中适用问题的既有法律规定及学术观点进行了介绍与辨析。最后，在前文铺陈观点的基础上，笔者从合同变更、利益衡量、实践中的误解情形、外观主义、拍卖不保真条款及瑕疵担保责任共计六个方面论述了笔者认为拍卖合同不宜适用重大误解制度的理由。虽然在第三部分本文的观点已十分明确，但在结语部分，笔者并不认为应当以本文的观点来左右法律修改的方向，文中详述了笔者与此有关的担忧及考虑。
[Abstract]:As a result of the work, the author often comes into contact with the litigation cases of the auction contract dispute. In many cases, the buyer claims to the court to cancel the auction contract because of a serious misunderstanding.Just after handling these cases, the author took it for granted that the auction contract was incompatible with the system of major misunderstandings, but in the process of searching for the case, the author found many court decisions that eventually revoked the validity of the auction contract because of major misunderstandings.Among them also have the announcement case of highest court.In order to probe into the application of major misunderstandings in auction contracts, the author came up with the idea of writing this article.This paper is divided into three parts. The first part introduces and analyzes the concept of major misunderstanding system.First of all, the article cites other scholars' textual research on the historical evolution of the etymology of major misunderstandings, and introduces the meaning of major misunderstanding as a legal term in the theoretical research and practice of civil law in the former Soviet Union and in the early liberation of China.Through the difference between the historical meaning and the modern meaning of the major misunderstanding, this paper expounds the causes of the major misunderstandings in the following articles, which are classified by the "wrong" system of the German civil law.Then, the article introduces in detail the "wrong" system in German civil law and the legislative development of the "wrong" system in other traditional civil law countries, common law countries and international treaties.After that, this paper expounds the meaning and characteristics of the substantial misunderstanding system on the basis of the method of comparative study and the wrong system as the reference.The second part of this paper briefly analyzes the connotation and extension of auction contract under the law of our country, and then determines the scope of discussion.Secondly, by comparing the auction contract with the sale contract and the bidding contract, the paper summarizes the characteristics of the auction contract and the major misunderstandings and exceptions.For the following point of view proposed to pave the way.In the third part, the author reinterprets the classic case of Trier Wine auction in the field of expression of will, and introduces the different conclusions of the case from two different perspectives: civil law and commercial law.Secondly, the article introduces and discriminates the existing legal provisions and academic viewpoints on the application of major misunderstandings in auction contracts.Finally, on the basis of the previous points of view, the author from the contract change, benefit measurement, misunderstandings in practice, appearance,This paper discusses the reasons why the auction contract should not be applied to the system of major misunderstanding in six aspects: the non-fidelity clause of auction and the total liability of guarantee for defects.Although the views in the third part of this paper have been very clear, in the conclusion part, the author does not think that the direction of the legal amendment should be decided by the viewpoint of this article.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】