缔约过失与欺诈的关系再造——以错误理论的功能介入为辅线

发布时间：2019-07-21 07:54

【摘要】：根据制度竞合论,缔约过失制度与欺诈制度之间存在评价矛盾,应通过承认"过失欺诈"予以解决。这一判断及其解决方案,在我国有重新检视之必要。对于欺诈撤销权与基于缔约过失的合同废除,请求权竞合说、欺诈规定优先说与折中方案均未能提供完善的解决之道,未从根本上消除评价矛盾。而作为因应之道的"过失欺诈"存在规范上的障碍,忽视了错误理论的适用性,尚欠充分的说服力。在解释论的背景之下,关于重大误解的规定可实现对"过失欺诈"的功能替代,以规制过失违反信息义务的行为。缔约过失责任在我国应醇化为金钱赔偿责任,从而实现与欺诈及重大误解规定的功能对接。缔约过失与欺诈的关系应为效果上的承接关系,以消解制度竞合视角下的评价矛盾。
[Abstract]:According to the theory of institutional concurrence, there is an evaluation contradiction between the system of contracting negligence and the system of fraud, which should be solved by admitting "negligence fraud". This judgment and its solution are necessary to re-examine in our country. For the right of cancellation of fraud and the abolition of contracts based on contracting negligence, the concurrence of claims says that the priority of fraud and the compromise scheme can not provide a perfect solution, and do not fundamentally eliminate the contradiction of evaluation. However, there are normative obstacles to "negligence fraud" as a way of response, neglecting the applicability of the error theory, and is still not fully persuasive. Under the background of hermeneutic theory, the provisions on gross misunderstanding can replace the function of "negligence fraud" in order to regulate the violation of information obligations by negligence. The liability for fault in contracting should be changed into pecuniary liability in our country, so as to realize the function docking with fraud and major misunderstanding. The relationship between contracting negligence and fraud should be the receiving relationship of effect in order to resolve the evaluation contradiction from the perspective of institutional concurrence.
【作者单位】：南京大学法学院;南京大学中德法学研究所;
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】