论因第三人欺诈、胁迫而订立的合同效力及立法完善

发布时间：2018-05-20 07:18

本文选题：第三人 + 欺诈　；参考：《山东大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：意思表示的瑕疵决定法律行为有效与否,一旦意思表示出现瑕疵,可能导致民事法律行为的不同结果。合同一般是当事人之间设立、变更、终止民事法律关系的协议,但在经济形势日益纷繁复杂的市场经济下,合同关系的效力及其影响力会涉及第三人。及于意思表示瑕疵,通常情形下,合同一方当事人所受欺诈、胁迫均来自于合同另一方当事人,在此情形下,各国法律一般均赋予受欺诈、胁迫人撤销权,然而在某些情形下,合同一方当事人所受欺诈、胁迫并非来自于合同另一方当事人,而是来自合同以外第三人,在此情形下,受欺诈、胁迫人是否依然可撤销合同,各国立法不一。综观大陆法系与英美法系主要国家就第三人因欺诈、胁迫所订立的合同效力之立法,大体分为两种情形,一是将第三人欺诈与胁迫区分而治之,在第三人胁迫情形下,受胁迫方具有绝对撤销权,在第三人欺诈情形下,第三人享有相对撤销权;二是在新近民法理论中,对第三人欺诈与胁迫的合同效力统一对待,即不论第三人行为是欺诈还是胁迫,只要合同另一方当事人对对方当事人所受的欺诈、胁迫不知情,合同受欺诈、胁迫方就无权撤销合同。屯于各种原因,我国目前在立法上对意思表示瑕疵问题的规定很不完善,现有立法虽然对合同当事人的欺诈、胁迫等行为作出了立法规范,但由于相关立法规范过于简单,造成了法内疏漏。我国合同法赋予合同一方当事人在受欺诈、胁迫等表意不真实情形下,申请法院变更或撤销合同效力的权利,但就合同一方当事人因第三人欺诈、胁迫所订立的合同之效力未做规定,造成法内漏洞。在我国编纂民法典这一历史性时刻,法律应当如何规范因受第三人欺诈、胁迫而订立的合同效力,以及如何平衡合同一方受欺诈、胁迫方当事人与合同相对人以及第三人之间的利益关系,是一个颇值研究且亟待解决的问题。大陆法系主流民法理论在第三人欺诈、胁迫问题中采区分模式,这一模式承继罗马法关于欺诈与胁迫的诉讼之差异化结构,这种承继,使区分模式牺牲善意相对人的利益,且有害交易安全,不利于鼓励交易。统一模式恰能克服区分模式的诸多缺点,保护善意相对人的利益,促进市场交易、维护市场秩序,且并不因保护交易安全而损害受胁迫人基本利益。因此未来中国民法典应当采纳统一模式,以与社会发展契合。
[Abstract]:The defect of the expression of will determines the validity or not of the legal act. Once there is a flaw in the expression of will, it may lead to different results of the civil legal act. Generally, the contract is an agreement between the parties to establish, change and terminate the civil legal relationship, but under the increasingly complicated economic situation, the effectiveness of the contract relationship and its influence will involve the third party. In general, the fraud and coercion of one party to the contract comes from the other party to the contract, in which case the law of every country generally grants the right to rescind the person who has been fraudulently coerced, but in some cases, The fraud suffered by one of the parties to the contract does not come from the other party to the contract, but from the third party outside the contract. In this case, whether the coercing party can still cancel the contract is different from each country's legislation. The legislation of the contract validity concluded by the third party due to fraud and coercion in the major countries of the civil law system and the common law system is generally divided into two situations: one is to divide and rule the third party fraud and the coercing area, and in the case of the third party coercion, The coerced party has the absolute right of rescission, and the third party enjoys the relative right of rescission in the case of fraud by the third party; second, in the recent theory of civil law, the contractual effect of fraud and coercion of the third party is treated uniformly. That is, no matter whether the behavior of the third party is fraud or coercion, the coercing party has no right to cancel the contract as long as the other party has no knowledge of the other party's fraud, coercion, and the contract being cheated. For a variety of reasons, China's current legislation on the issue of defects in the expression of will is not perfect, although the existing legislation of the parties to the contract fraud, coercion and other acts made legislative norms, but due to the relevant legislative norms are too simple, It caused internal caveats. The contract law of our country gives a party to a contract the right to apply to the court for modification or rescission of the validity of the contract in the case of fraud, coercion, etc., but in the case of fraud by a third party, The validity of the contract concluded under duress is not stipulated, resulting in loopholes in the law. At this historic moment when our country codifies the Civil Code, how should the law regulate the validity of the contract concluded because of fraud and coercion by the third party, and how to balance the contract party being cheated? The interest relationship between the coercing party and the relative party of contract and the third party is a valuable problem to be solved. The mainstream civil law theory of the continental law system adopts the distinguishing model in the problem of fraud and coercion of the third party, which inherits the difference structure between fraud and coercion in Roman law, which makes the distinction model sacrifice the benefit of the bona fide counterpart. And harmful transactions are safe, not conducive to encouraging transactions. The unified model can overcome the shortcomings of the differentiation model, protect the interests of the bona fide counterpart, promote the market transaction, maintain the market order, and do not harm the basic interests of the coerced person because of the protection of the transaction security. Therefore, the future Chinese Civil Code should adopt a unified model in line with social development.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】