差异与融合:最新三大不当得利示范法比较研究

发布时间：2018-07-21 09:31

【摘要】：不当得利是最近十余年里两大法系投入智识最多的领域之一,欧洲示范民法典不当得利编、美国《第三次返还与不当得利法重述》和《英国不当得利法重述》在最近三、四年间相继问世。由于制度历史与知识背景的原因,美国不当得利法重述仍然没有脱离返还法固有规范框架,欧洲不当得利法草案尽管是两大法系整合的结果但仍更具大陆法色彩,英国不当得利法重述是前两个示范法进一步整合的结果,其首次将不当得利从返还法中独立出来,在内容上兼具大陆法与英美法的特点。尽管存在这些差异,但三大示范法体系与内容上的融合趋势亦十分明显,三者的规范模式、立法基础与立法方式几乎完全一致,在不当得利构成要件、不当得利请求权效力与请求权竞合等问题上亦都取得了较多的共识。我国不当得利立法至少可从七个方面充分借鉴该三大示范法的融合之处。
[Abstract]:Unjust enrichment is one of the areas in which the two major legal systems have invested the most in wisdom in the last decade. The European Model Civil Code did not benefit properly, the third return and improper enrichment Law restated in the United States and the British unjust enrichment Law restatement in the last three years. Four years after another. Due to the historical and intellectual background of the system, the restatement of the unjust enrichment law in the United States is still not divorced from the inherent normative framework of the return law. Although the draft of the European unjust enrichment law is the result of the integration of the two major legal systems, it is still more continental. The restatement of British unjust enrichment law is the result of the further integration of the first two model laws, which for the first time separates improper enrichment from the return law and has the characteristics of both continental law and Anglo-American law in content. In spite of these differences, the trend of integration of the three model law systems and contents is also very obvious. The normative mode, legislative basis and legislative method of the three models are almost identical, and the constitutive elements of improper enrichment are almost identical. There has also been more consensus on the validity of unjust enrichment claim and the concurrence of claim rights. China's unjust enrichment legislation can at least draw lessons from the fusion of the three model laws from at least seven aspects.
【作者单位】：西南政法大学民商法学院;
【基金】：西南政法大学2012年重点研究项目《不当得利比较研究——以两大法系制度整合为背景》的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D913

【相似文献】