“凶宅”买卖合同的效力

发布时间：2018-01-04 10:20

本文关键词：“凶宅”买卖合同的效力　出处：《上海交通大学》2014年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：近10年来，我国房地产二手房买卖市场出现了多起“凶宅”买卖合同的纠纷，司法实践及学界对处理此类纠纷提出了不一样的判断标准。目前我国的法律没有关于此类纠纷的相关规定。本文拟以凶宅买卖合同的法律效力为主要研究对象，通过分析凶宅的界定标准，梳理相关案例和学说，就凶宅买卖合同效力问题提出自己的看法。本文除前言和结语外，由三个部分构成：本文第一部分“‘凶宅’的界定”，分析了社会对“凶宅”的认识和理解因人而异，，呈现多样性，整理了学界关于“凶宅”认定的两种学说即限定说和扩张说。限定说主张认定标准应严格，限制于发生在房屋内部，因人为因素和现场致死的房屋；扩张说在限定说的基础上，将范围扩充至发生意外事件和非正常死亡事件的房屋以及房屋所处地段敏感和曾和违法沾边的房屋。本文第二部“相关案例和合同效力学说”，梳理了域外和国内的相关案例，主要介绍了我国台湾和香港地区的案例以及英国和美国的案例并整理了关于凶宅买卖合同效力的学说即有效说和无效说。有效说以物之瑕疵和“买者自负”为切入点，而无效说则以诚实信用原则和披露义务为根据。在此基础上，整理分析了国内相关案例和学说。我国司法实践判断标准不一，其判定合同效力的标准可分为五种类型。国内学说意见也有分歧，有效说以合同目的、合同意思自治、瑕疵担保责任和侵权责任为依据，无效说则以公序良俗原则和诚实信用原则为依据。本文最后一部分“‘凶宅’买卖合同效力之我见”，首先，在凶宅界定方面，赞同界定限定说，并主张“凶宅”的界定，应以符合客观性、严重性或异常性、场所的局限性、直接因果性和时效性五个条件为判断标准。其次，在凶宅合同效力方面，主张“凶宅”非属善良风俗，不应适用公序良俗原则；凶宅的法律性质为瑕疵之物，出卖人应承担瑕疵担保责任；出卖人违反诚实信用原则，未尽告知义务，应承担缔约过失责任。
[Abstract]:In the past 10 years, there have been many disputes on the sale of second-hand real estate houses in China. Judicial practice and academic circles to deal with such disputes put forward a different standard of judgment. At present, there are no relevant provisions on such disputes in the law of our country. This article intends to focus on the legal effect of the purchase and sale contract for the main object of study. By analyzing the definition standard of the house, combing the relevant cases and theories, the author puts forward his own views on the validity of the contract. In addition to the preface and conclusion, this paper consists of three parts: In the first part of this paper, "the definition of" villainy ", the author analyzes the social understanding and understanding of" villainy ", which varies from person to person and presents diversity. The author collates the two theories about the identification of "fierce house" in academic circles, that is, the theory of limitation and the theory of expansion, which advocates that the standard of identification should be strict and be limited to the house that occurs inside the house and is killed by human factors and the scene; On a limited basis, the expansion extends to homes where accidents and deaths occur, as well as homes that are in sensitive locations and have been exposed to illegal practices. The second part of this article "related cases and contract effectiveness theory", combing the extraterritorial and domestic related cases. This paper mainly introduces the cases of Taiwan and Hong Kong and the cases of the United Kingdom and the United States, and collates the theories about the validity of the contract of sale and purchase of the home, that is, the effective theory and the invalid theory. The effective theory is based on the defect of goods and the "buyer's ego". As a starting point. On the basis of the principle of good faith and the obligation of disclosure, the author collates and analyzes the relevant domestic cases and theories. The judgment standard of judicial practice is different in our country. The criteria for judging the validity of the contract can be divided into five types. There are different opinions in the domestic doctrine, which is based on the purpose of the contract, autonomy of the meaning of the contract, liability for guarantee against defects and liability for tort. The theory of invalidity is based on the principle of public order and good faith. In the last part of this paper, "my opinion on the effect of the contract of purchase and sale of the 'fierce house'", first of all, in the definition of the fierce house, the author agrees with the definition of the definition and advocates that the definition of the "fierce house" should conform to the objectivity, seriousness or abnormal nature. The limitation of the place, the direct causality and the timeliness are the judgment criteria. Secondly, in the aspect of the effectiveness of the contract, it is advocated that the "fierce house" is not a kind custom, and the principle of public order and good custom should not be applied. If the legal nature of the house is defective, the seller shall bear the responsibility for the guarantee of the defect; If the seller violates the principle of good faith and fails to fulfill the obligation to inform, he shall be liable for contracting negligence.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】