两岸民事违约责任之比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 04:05

本文选题：两岸 + 民事　；参考：《西南政法大学》2007年博士论文

【摘要】： 作为台湾的法—西南政法大学研修民商法，受益良多。学习期间，亲眼目睹大陆市场经济律工作者，我有幸在大陆法学名府—发展之迅速强劲，深刻体会到两岸同文同种，血浓于水之同胞情深，和发展两岸贸易、文化交流之强烈愿望。而两岸贸易和文化交流乃至民间旅游、探亲访友，须臾不离合同，故萌生写作本文之冲动，希望在两岸贸易发展、经济交流以及旅游、探亲日益频繁之时，通过比较两岸违约责任制度之异同，为两岸同胞提供处理法律纠纷之参考和指引，期能造福华夏子孙。比较研究的对象为台湾地区民法典的相关规定、大陆民法通则和合同法以及司法解释、判例和学者理论见解，间或涉及对大陆法系和英美法系代表性国家相关制度和理论的介绍，以开拓视野。论文分为前言、本论和结论三部分，除前言外，共十章。第一至六章为基础编，研究合同的成立、效力，违约责任制度的历史沿革，违约责任制度的一般理论，违约责任的归则原则，违约的形态，免责事由。第七至九章专就两岸违约责任的形式进行比较研究。第十章概括全文之研究结论。本论部分的主要内容如下：第一章通过对合同成立条件和基本原则的比较，吾人得出结论，大陆合同法和台湾地区民法所称之合同，均为债权合同。合同之成立，均贯彻平等、自由、公平、诚信和公德公益原则。就合同效力而言，合同成立后，债务人负有给付义务、附随义务、先合同义务、后合同义务和不真正义务(对己义务)。合同的履行既是合同效力的集中体现，也是合同消灭的主要原因，而且，明晰合同履行的法律要求，是认定违约进而确定违约责任的前提条件。所以研究违约责任必须先究明合同履行的原则和具体要求。两岸均认可合同履行应遵循诚实信用原则和全面履行(适当履行、正确履行)原则和情事变更原则。此外大陆合同法上尚有实际履行原则和协作履行原则。第二章回顾了违约责任制度的历史沿革。古代罗马法实行债务奴隶制度，允许债权人拘禁不能偿债的债务人，甚至允许债权人将他们杀死。至《查士丁尼法典》，取消债务奴隶，确立了违约损害赔偿制度。后世法治国家继承了罗马法上违约损害赔偿制度并不断发展完善，而各国由于传统、理论等不同，形成不同的理论和制度。如法国民法典采取限制赔偿原则，德国民法典采完全赔偿原则。英国普通法将违约行为分为预期违反合同和实际违反合同，二者之要件和救济手段不同。此外，英国的衡平法还对违约提供了两种救济手段，即特定履行(由衡平法院发布命令，强制合同的一方当事人如约履行合同义务，当事人如不依特定命令履行，即构成蔑视法庭罪，将被判处监禁和罚金)和禁制令。美国法违约责任有损害赔偿、实际履行和禁令。另值注意者，美国判例承认在某些情况下，当事人对于因对方违约造成的精神痛苦可获得赔偿。这些都对现代各国合同法的发展产生了重大的影响。第三章违约责任的一般理论，对债与责任、违约责任与债务不履行责任、违约责任与不当得利返还责任、违约责任与侵权责，从概念、功能、构成要件、适用范围、法律效力等方面进行了比较分析，并对责任竞合的不同学说进行了分析探讨，结合大陆和台湾地区的实际，提出自己的见解。第四章违约责任的归则论原则，通过对两岸的立法和学者观点的分析讨论，得出如下结论：大陆合同法对违约责任的归则原则采严格责任原则，台湾民法采过错责任原则，但于实务操作上，借助据证责任分配之功能，使二者并无实质性差别。第五章违约的形态与效力，讨论了给付不能、给付迟延、不完全给付、给付拒绝四种违约形态，以及各种违约之责任。特别是将台湾地区民法和理论上之不完全给付与大陆合同法之不适当履行进行了详细的分析对比。第六章免责事由，讨论了免责事由的概念，免责事由与抗辩事由的区别，并重点分析了不可抗力、定型化免责条款、债权人的过错和情势变更的效力。大陆民法通则和合同法专门规定了不可抗力，不可抗力包括自然灾害、法令修改和社会异常事件。在过错责任原则下，意外事故亦是免责事由，而在严格责任原则下，意外事故不能免责。大陆合同法规定，定型化免责条款生效的前提是不得违反法律的强制性规定，不得免除造成对方人身伤害和因故意或者重大过失造成他人财产损失的责任，不得排除对方的主要权利。情势变更的效力分为第一次效力和第二次效力。第一次效力指债务人得请求法院增减给付或者变更给付；第二次效力指如果变更合同的方式尚不足以消除显失公平的后果，或者继续履行已不可能，则可采用终止合同或者解除合同的方式来平衡当事人之间的利益。第七至九章是违约责任的形式，比较研究了实际履行、解除合同、违约金、定金和损害赔偿五种违约责任的形式和每种责任的构成要件、适用范围，以及它们的相互关系。结论部分总结比较研究之结果，得出以下结论：一、整体上均追随世界潮流，各有所长大陆合同法和台湾地区民法中与合同有关规定相较，各有所长，而不乏共同之处。举其荧荧之大者：格式化合同(即附合契约)、缔约过错责任，两岸之立法均能因应世界潮流予以增订。台湾地区民法债编未就电子合同予以规范，不无与现今社会生活脱节之憾。另有关预期违约规定，亦是台湾地区民法所未见。尤以债务不履行之归责原则，大陆合同法率先采用英美法无过错责任原则(即严格责任原则)，此与台湾地区民法仍抱持大陆法系传统的过错责任原则，此乃最大差异之处。至于违约责任与侵权责任竞合，台湾地区民法未如大陆合同法定有明文，毋宁是让诸于学说及实务见解，以补法之不足。二、具体制度就合同违约责任具体制度的比较而言，有以下结论性意见值得强调： 1．两岸立法均有违约责任之规定，然不容讳言的是台湾地区民法债务不履行责任，并非专为合同而为规定，而是一体适用于各种债务关系，因而导致同样内容的概念两岸表述上的差异，此研究和适用时不得不辨。 2．台湾地区民法就债务不履行系采过错责任原则，而非如大陆合同法所采的无过错责任原则。为期公允，台湾地区学者及实务咸认债权人就债务不履行，只须证明债务人有不履行债务之事实即可，若债务人抗辩债务不履行不可归责于伊者，则应由债务人就不可归的事由之存在举证证明，果与采过错推定原则无异。实施结果，与大陆合同法无过错责任原则，结果并无不同。因此，尽管两岸就债务不履行所采行之归责原则绝然不同，但由实务运作之结果，则无所轩轾。 3．关于免责事由。台湾地区民法因采过错归责原则，以可归责于债务人之事由存在，为债务不履行责任成立之基础，因之，除因债务人主观上就债务不履行有故意、过失外，余均属不能归责于债务人之事由，是免责事由未见诸于法律明文，原因在此。惟若严格贯彻此一原则，对债权人权益之保护，亦未尽周到，斯乃有若干例外之规定予以修正。大陆合同法因采无过错责任原则，故而，须就债务人得为免责之事由，予以明文规定。如合同法第117条规定因不可抗力致合同义务全部不能履行或者部分不能履行的，免除违约责任，但当事人迟延履行后发生不可抗力，不能免除责任。此与台湾地区民法就债务人迟延后，其责任相对加重，即令发生不可抗力事变，亦须负债务不履行责任之规定不谋而合。 4．大陆合同法将继续履行规定为违约承担责任形式之一。台湾地区民法并未将继续履行列为债务不履行之一种责任形式。尽管如此，在台湾，债权人于债务人不履行债务后，只要履行尚属可能，即得依合同要求履行，初不问法有无将继续履行列作违约责任形式而有所不同，例如金钱借贷债务给付迟延者，债权人除得要求债务人给付迟延之损害外，当然仍可要求债务人继续履行清偿之债务。准此以观，尽管两岸就继续履行是否列为违约责任之形式规定不同，惟实际运作结果，尚无差异。 5、大陆合同法注重合同当事人之协商与协作关系，合同法第60条、61条对合同订立、合同内容发生争议时之相互协商有明文规定。甚而在不履行情事发生后，亦贯彻了协力之宗旨，如合同法第118条关于因不可抗力不能履行合同时，应当及时通知对方，以减轻可能给对方造成的损失的规定，第119条关于一方违约后，对方应当采取适当措施防止损失的扩大的规定。这些规定祛除了非违约方“断臂即为中彩”，坐等违约方赔偿之心理，以扩大的损失不能要求赔偿之失权效果，课予非违约方须采取防止损失扩大的措施。而且因此一协力措施，可以减轻违约方的责任负担，兼顾了双方权益。台湾地区民法第153条第2项及第217第1项之规定及实务之实践，可与大陆合同法第60条、61条和119条规定相当。但是，由于台湾合同法为民法的一个部分，以上条文并非在“契约”名下，专为契约而定，但司法实务上之见解以为此一规定，不仅适用于侵权责任，即合同违约责任亦有其适用。 6、大陆合同法将采取补救措施亦列为违约责任形式之，依其立法意旨，主要是适用在质量不符合约定之情况。台湾地区民法，并无类此之直接明文，然2000年5月5日修正民法第227条之规定，与此意旨相同，堪相比拟。三、立法形式就立法形式而言，大陆合同法作为合同之独立立法，突显出在工商社会里合同之重要性与必要性，而且适用方便。台湾地区民法虽有“契约”之专门规定，除违约金责任、定金责任外，兼及合同的解除与终止，双务合同之同时履行抗辩权、不安抗辩权，及第三人负担合同、利益第三人合同等规范。惟就包括违约在内之债务不履行，其不履行之态样，其责任的构成，则委诸之“债之效力”章节中为共通之规定。换言之，就关于债务不履行之态样与责任之构成，不惟合同有其适用，合同以外之债权债务关系，例如不当得利、无因管理等，均有其适用。就债权债务关系发生原因，不止合同一途，尚有不当得利、侵权行为、无因管理等，而债务不履行之构成与责任，作一抽象概括之规范，以期适用于各种债之关系，可以避免就共通事项，却必须于各种债之关系作专门之立法，显现其适用之方便性。但就规范明确，易于掌握和适用方便言，则逊于大陆独立之合同法。尽管两岸关于合同之立法，各有优点长处，且规范之内容，亦不尽相同，然而，违约责任作为担保合同履行之手段则是共同一致的。即令若干合同法上之规定，为台湾地区民法所未有明文，惟通过法的解释及实务运作补充，差异性已减至最低，再若有差别，非不得以大陆合同法之规定，当作法理加以援用，以彻底消除差异。如两岸合同之归责原则之立法绝然有别，但通过台湾学者见解与实务运作，将举证责任反置，，却亦无逊于严格责任之立法。概而言之，大陆合同法的立法规范，虽说不上“精”、“简”，但规定明确、易懂是其优点，就法律适用之方便性，法律推广之普通性，起了很大的作用。相较于台湾地区的民法，无论是否与合同相关之立法，精简有余，但艰晦难懂，以法律颁行贵在适用而言，毋宁以大陆合同法之立法模式较优。再就实质而论，大陆合同法就合同之权义关系，不再刻板建立请求及被请求之对立模式上，反而，更加强调协商、协作、协力的必要，彰显了人类互助之天性，亦体现合同法平等、公平之立法原则，堪值借镜。
[Abstract]:As the law of Taiwan, it has benefited a lot from the study of civil and commercial law of Southwest University of Political Science and Law. During my study, I have been able to witness the mainland market economic law workers, and I have been fortunate to have the rapid and strong development of the mainland jurisprudence. I have deeply felt the same love between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits, the blood is thicker than the water, and the strong desire for the development of cross-strait trade and cultural exchange. Two Bank trade, cultural exchange and even folk tourism, visiting relatives and friends, and not leaving the contract for a moment, therefore have the impulse to produce writing this article, and hope to provide reference and guidance for the cross straits compatriots to deal with legal disputes by comparing the similarities and differences of the system of breach of contract between the two sides of the Straits. Fu Hua summer son and grandson.
The object of the comparative study is the relevant provisions of the civil code of the Taiwan region, the general principles of civil law and the law of contract and the judicial interpretation, the jurisprudence and the theoretical views of scholars, and the introduction of the relevant systems and theories of the representative countries of the continental law system and the Anglo American legal system, in order to open up the field of vision.
The thesis is divided into the preface, the three part of this theory and the conclusion. In addition to the preface, there are ten chapters. The first to the six chapter is the basis for the study of the establishment, effect, the historical evolution of the system of liability for breach of contract, the general theory of the liability for breach of contract, the principle of the liability for breach of contract, the form of breach of contract, the cause of disclaimer, and the form of the breach of contract between the two sides of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. The tenth chapter summarizes the conclusions of the study.
The main contents of this part are as follows:
The first chapter, through the comparison of the conditions and basic principles of the establishment of the contract, draws the conclusion that both the contract law and the contract referred to in the civil law of Taiwan are obligatory contracts. The principle of equality, freedom, fairness, integrity and public welfare is carried out in the establishment of the contract. Obligations, first contract obligations, post contract obligations and untrue obligations (to their own obligations). The performance of the contract is not only the concentrated expression of the validity of the contract, but also the main reason for the elimination of the contract. Moreover, it is the prerequisite to identify the legal requirements of the performance of the contract and to determine the liability for breach of contract. Therefore, the study of the liability for breach of contract must first clarify the performance of the contract. Both sides agree that the performance of the contract should follow the principle of honesty and credit and the principle of full performance (proper performance, correct performance) and the principle of change of circumstances. In addition, there are still practical principles and cooperative performance principles on the mainland contract law.
The second chapter reviews the historical evolution of the system of liability for breach of contract. The ancient Rome law implements the debt slavery system, allowing the creditors to detain the debtors who cannot pay the debt, and even allow the creditors to kill them. To < the Charles code >, the cancellation of the debt slaves, the system of damages for breach of contract has been established. After the rule of law, the country of the rule of law inherited the law of breach of contract in Rome. The damage compensation system has been developed and perfected, and different countries form different theories and systems due to different traditions and theories. For example, the legal national code adopts the principle of limited compensation, the German civil code adopts the principle of complete compensation. The British ordinary law divides the breach of contract into the expected breach of contract and the actual violation of the contract, the two elements and relief means are not. In addition, the British equity law also provides two means of remedies for breach of contract, that is, a specific performance (by an equitable court issued by an equitable court, a party to which a contract is forced to perform a contractual obligation, if the party is not performed according to a particular order, that constitutes a crime of contempt of a court, a sentence of imprisonment and a fine) and an injunction. Compensation, actual performance and injunction. Other values, American jurisprudence recognizes that in some cases, the parties can obtain compensation for the mental suffering caused by the other party's breach of contract. These all have a significant impact on the development of the modern contract law.
The general theory of liability for breach of contract in the third chapter is a comparative analysis of the debt and responsibility, liability for breach of contract and the liability for non performance of debt, liability for breach of contract and the liability for return of improper enrichment, liability for breach of contract and liability for infringement, from the concept, function, constitutive requirements, scope of application and legal effect, and the analysis and discussion of the different doctrines of liability competing. In the light of the reality of the mainland and Taiwan, I put forward my own views.
The fourth chapter is the principle of return on the liability for breach of contract. Through the analysis and discussion of the legislative and scholars' views of the two sides, the following conclusions are drawn: the continental contract law adopts the principle of strict liability for the principle of the liability for breach of contract, the principle of fault liability in the civil law of Taiwan, but in practice, the two are not substantial by the function of the distribution of the evidence liability. Difference.
The fifth chapter is the form and effect of breach of contract. It discusses the failure of payment, payment delay, incomplete payment, and refusal of the four forms of breach of contract, and the responsibilities of various kinds of breach of contract. In particular, it makes a detailed analysis and comparison of the improper performance of the civil law and the incomplete payment in Taiwan and the continental contract law in the civil law and theory.
The sixth chapter disclaimer, discusses the concept of disclaimer, the difference between the disclaimer and the defense, and focuses on the analysis of the force majeure, the stereotyped exemption clause, the creditor's fault and the effect of the change of the situation. The general principles and contract law of the civil law of the mainland of China include the force majeure, and the force majeure includes natural disasters, decrees amending and social differences. Under the principle of liability for fault, an accident is also the cause of disclaimer. Under the principle of strict liability, an accident cannot be exempt from liability. The continental contract law stipulates that the prerequisite for the entry into force of the finalized exemption clause is not to violate the mandatory provisions of the law, and may not be exempted from the personal injury to the other party and caused by deliberate or major negligence. The liability for loss of production shall not exclude the main rights of the other party. The effect of the change of situation is divided into the first effect and the second effect. The first effect means that the debtor must ask the court to add or reduce the payment or change the payment; the second effect means that if the way to change the contract is not enough to eliminate the consequences of the explicit fairness, or to continue to perform it no longer. It may be possible to balance the interests of the parties by terminating the contract or cancelling the contract.
The seventh to nine chapter is the form of liability for breach of contract. It compares the forms of the five liability for breach of contract, the termination of the contract, the breach of contract, the deposit and the damages, and the elements of each liability, the scope of application and their relations.
The conclusion summarizes the results of the comparative study and draws the following conclusions:
One, on the whole, they follow the world trend and have their own strengths.
The contract law of the mainland and the civil law in the Taiwan region are different from the relevant provisions of the contract. They have their own strengths and common features. The large flicker: the formatted contract (that is, the attachment contract), the fault liability of the contracting parties, and the legislation of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits should be added to the world trend. The civil law debt in Taiwan has not been standardized on the electronic contract. This is a regret for the disjointed life of the present social life. Besides, the provisions of the expected breach of contract are also not seen in the civil law of the Taiwan region. In particular, the principle of liability for non performance of debt is the principle that the continental contract law takes the lead in the principle of no fault liability of the Anglo American Law (i.e. the principle of strict liability), and this is the biggest difference between the civil law of the Taiwan region and the principle of fault liability in the traditional law of the large land law system. As for the concurrence of the liability for breach of contract and the liability for tort, the civil law of the Taiwan region is not as clear as the statutory law of the mainland contract, and it is rather to let the doctrines and practical views be made to the deficiency of the supplement.
Two, specific system
In comparison with the specific system of liability for breach of contract, the following concluding observations deserve to be stressed:
1. the legislation of the two sides of the Taiwan Straits has the stipulations of the liability for breach of contract. However, it is not allowed to say that the liability of civil liability in Taiwan is not obligated, not specifically for the contract, but it is one of the various debt relations, which leads to the differences between the two sides of the same content. This study and application have to be identified.
2. the civil law of the Taiwan region takes the principle of fault liability for the non performance of debt, rather than the principle of no fault liability adopted by the continental contract law. For a period of time, the Taiwan regional scholar and the practice of recognizing the creditor will not fulfill the debt. It is only necessary to prove that the debtor has the fact that the debt is not fulfilled, and if the debtor's debtor's debtor is not fulfilled, it is not imputable. There is no difference between the result and the principle of fault liability of the mainland contract law, the result is not different from the principle of fault liability of the mainland contract law.
3. on the cause of disclaimer. In Taiwan, the civil law of the region, due to the principle of fault liability, is responsible for the existence of the debtor, which is the basis for the non performance of liability. In addition, the liability of the debtor is not attributable to the obligation of the debtor except that the debtor is subjective on the debt, and it is not unaccountable to the law. The reason is that, if the principle is strictly carried out and the protection of the rights and interests of the creditor is not enough, we have some exceptions to amend it. The continental contract law is based on the principle of no fault liability. Therefore, it is necessary to stipulate clearly that the debtor should be exempt from the responsibility of the debtor. For example, the 117th provisions of the same law stipulate the whole contract obligation due to force majeure. If the party is unable to perform or partly fails to perform the liability for breach of contract, the party shall have the force majeure and cannot be exempt from the liability after the delay of the performance of the party, and the liability of the civil law in the Taiwan area is relatively heavier after the delay of the debtor, that is, the force majeure event will occur, and the liability for the non performance of liability is also required to coincide.
The contract law of the 4. continent will continue to perform one of the forms of liability for breach of contract. Civil law in the Taiwan region does not continue to perform as one of the forms of liability for non performance of the debt. Nevertheless, in Taiwan, after the debtor is not performing the debt, the creditor may be fulfilled as long as it is possible, that is, according to the requirements of the contract, and at first does not ask whether the law will continue. It is different from the form of a liability for breach of contract, such as the delay in the payment of a money loan debt. In addition to requiring the debtor's delay in payment, the creditor may, of course, require the debtor to continue to fulfill the debt. As a result, there is no difference.
5, the contract law of the mainland pays attention to the negotiation and cooperation relationship between the parties of the contract, the sixtieth of the contract law, the 61 articles of the contract and the mutual negotiation of the contract when the content of the contract is disputed. Even after the failure to carry out the situation, the purpose of the cooperation is also carried out, such as the 118th article of the contract law, when the force majeure is not performed, it should be timely. The other is to inform the other party to alleviate the loss that may be caused by the other party. After the 119th party shall take appropriate measures to prevent the expansion of the loss after a party's breach of contract, these Provisions dispel the psychology of the non breaching party, "a broken arm is a lottery", and wait for the compensation of the default party to compensate for the loss of the right effect. The non defaulting party must take measures to prevent the expansion of the loss. Moreover, the joint measures can reduce the liability burden of the party in breach of contract and take into account the rights and interests of the two parties. The 153rd provisions and practice of the second and 217 first items of the civil law of the Taiwan region may be equivalent to the sixtieth, 61 and 119 provisions of the continental contract law. But, due to the contract of the Taiwan As a part of the civil law, the above provisions are not under the name of the "contract", which are specially made for the contract, but the opinions on the judicial practice are not only applicable to the tort liability, but also the liability for breach of contract.
6, the mainland contract law will take remedial measures as the form of liability for breach of contract. In accordance with its legislative intention, it is mainly applicable to the circumstances of the non conformity of the quality. The civil law of the Taiwan region has no direct text like this, but in May 5, 2000, the provisions of the amendment to the 227th article of the civil law and the purpose of this amendment
【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2007
【分类号】：D913

【引证文献】