合同错误的比较法研究

错误是影响合同当事人意思表示真实性的核心要素,也是判定合同效力的重要条件。各国民法对合同错误概念的不同界定和处置规则,导致合同效力的确认和处理结果迥异。尽管存在错误的合同理应得到法律的适当救济,然而救济的后果并非取消所有因错误而签订的合同之效力。作为一项原则,单方错误的合同、表示方有过错的合同和一方自愿承担风险的合同,其效力均不应被否定,但这一原则的适用又受制于适当的条件。对于合同错误的处理规则,各国的法律规定与司法实践并不完全一致。     

缔约接触阶段之利益受领行为的民法规制

对于一方当事人在缔约接触阶段从另一方受领利益，却并未明示同意另一方的交易条件的情形，民法体系中看似分散的各种解决途径在利益衡量层面实际上具有相通的功能。对中国和德国相关法律状况的分析显示，在可能的情况下，法院对规则适用的检索应遵循可推测行为（默示意思表示）———不当得利———缔约过失或侵权行为的顺序，在双方当事人之间依次寻求实现利益共同增进、权属清晰化和固有损失最小化这三个目标。事实合同理论作为行政管制色彩浓厚的另类解决途径，在此类案件中具有替代上述一个或更多制度而发挥相同功能的潜在可能。     

论不动产登记“缩略”的不法性及其阻却

不动产登记缩略的不法性具有公法、私法双重面相。就其公法不法性,可通过行政处罚等公法手段予以规制,并得与其私法效果相区隔。就私法效果而言,登记缩略因违反登记要件主义,使得该三方当事人所期望的物权效果无法实现;并因黑白合同的存在,导致其不法性进一步扩散,使之层叠为税费规避、强制性法律规范违反和虚伪表示的交错。登记缩略在私法解释学上的核心,在于如何焊接因中间登记省略而断裂的物权链,从而阻却其违法性,其方法包括授权理论、期待权理论和我国实务中的黑白合同方式;登记缩略的原因债权行为表现为链式交易合同、债权让与、利益第三人合同或第三人履行合同,其履行则表现为给付连锁、缩短给付或指示给付;因我国物权变动模式之通说尚未形成,仅依据《物权法》第15条,登记缩略情形下物债效力区隔和传递,存在多种解释余地。     

Contracts, Necessity and Ex Ante Optimality

In this paper I return to the issue of incentives to justify a narrowing of the applicability of a fair price rule to contracts of necessity. It is argued that such contracts should be viewed as part of a set of ex ante choices, one of which will minimize the costs of dealing with the risks associated with a period of temporary necessity. The Pareto optimality of a contract of necessity depends on whether the contract price would be seen by a potential victim of necessity as optimal ex ante, relative to her other choices with which to deal with the risk. It is shown that in the special case of a discrete choice set a fair price rule of law may not lead to efficient behavior on the part of both agents.     

股东会决议无效的公司法解释

股东会决议无效是公司法上的特殊现象,在立法上宜做缜密细致的特别规定。然而,公司法和“公司法解释四”表述简约,在决议无效判断标准上诱发众多理论和实务分歧。我国就股东会决议效力规制,经历了从英美法向大陆法模式的转型。前者以1993年公司法第111条为代表,关注对股东会决议实施的控制;后者以公司法第22条为核心,强调对股东会决议形成的控制。在现行法下,对股东会决议无效规则的解释,不应采用概念法学分析路径,不宜搬用法律行为规则或侵权责任法的分析路径,应当尽力回归公司法解释路径,也即,斟酌公司关系的安定性、决议形成的程序性和效力控制的时间性,达成维护公司关系安定性与消除决议违法性的双重目标。在认定股东会决议违法无效时,应当从决议无效的本质出发,重视决议无效与撤销规则在适用中的交叉和互动,将违反公司本质、违反公司民主参与规则、违反强制性规定和违反公序良俗,作为股东会决议无效的一般法定事由。     

行政不法与刑事不法的不对称性研究

我国行政法规范与刑事法规范并行的二元违法立法模式,是确定行政不法与刑事不法范围、关系的法源所在.在我国立法模式下,行政不法与刑事不法的对象、范围均具有不对称性,均需区分交叉部分与独立部分.行政不法与刑事不法规制对象的交叉部分即规制对象相同并不意味规制范围相同,需要进一步通过规范保护目的区分行政不法与刑法不法范围的交叉部...     

走向现代刑法:违法性认识的规范展开

在"刑民不分"的前现代法律中,"不知法不免责"之"法",主要是伦理法、民商法,"责"则主要是采客观归责的侵权责任.而在"刑民有别"的现代法律中,由"前置法定性与刑事法定量相统一"的法益保护和不法制裁的部门法层级结构和比例分配所决定,客观构成要件中的规范要素以前置法的规范评价为核心,相应地,行为之前置法不法性认识乃主观构...     

组织框架下表决权拘束协议的体系规制

凡是以股东表决权行使为标的的债权协议均为表决权拘束协议,其在实践应用中具有不同的形态与功能。对表决权拘束协议进行规制,不仅需要将其从不同合同类型中识别出来,更要厘清不同形态背后差异化的规制目的与法律对策。合同法、公司法、证券法共同构建了规制体系,三者各有侧重:合同法提供了概念与规则基础;公司法进行了组织价值与规则的填充;证券法通过其合并规则应对义务的规避,解决形式与实质的不一致问题。三者不可偏废:合同层面的纠纷解决不能脱离组织的特殊性而抽象地适用合同法规范;证券特别规制的妥当适用,也无法脱离其合同法与公司法的规范与概念基础。     

An optional European contract law code: Advantages and disadvantages

Should the EU introduce an Optional European Contract Law Code and what should it look like? By applying economic theories of federalism and regulatory competition (legal federalism), it is shown why an Optional Code would be a very suitable legal instrument within a two-level European System of Contract Laws. By allowing private parties’ choice of law to a certain extent, it can combine the most important advantages of centralisation and decentralisation of competences for legal rules. Through differentiated analyses of three kinds of contract law rules (mandatory substantive rules, mandatory information rules and facilitative law), important conclusions can be reached: which kinds of contract law rules are most suitable to be applied on an optional basis (e.g. facilitative law) and which might be less so (e.g. a core of information regulations). Furthermore a number of additional general conclusions about the design and scope of an Optional EU Code and some conclusions in regard to sales law are derived.     

无权处分辨——合同法第51条规定的解释与适用

按照民法解释学 ,我国合同法第 51条规定的是买卖等合同的效力待定-而非物权行为的效力待定。买卖等合同可以含有引发物权变动的效果意思。处分权宜作处分能力的解释 ,并影响买卖等合同的效力 ,其适用范围不限于特定物的买卖等。主张无权处分不影响合同效力的四大理由并不充分 ,均存疑问。民法总则关于法律行为的标的须可能、确定、合法的要求并未将债权行为排除在外。第 51条同第 52条、第 54条的衔接平滑 ,与第 1 50条的关系可以按特别法优先于普通法的规则协调。善意取得为原始取得 ,其成立不以无权处分的合同有效为前提 ,限于有偿合同场合为宜。善意取得确系受让人取得标的物所有权的“合法根据” ,在受让人尚未支付相应价款的情况下 ,不当得利可以存在于标的物的变形物上。     

Alive and well: the good faith principle in Turkish contract law

Good faith is a principle prominent in civil law countries but less so in common law countries, and which allows courts to deviate from black letter law. It provides them with flexibility to change the outcome of a deductive legal decision if they regard it as absurd. The principle of good faith thus empowers the judiciary to deviate. It can be used for an indefinite number of cases and might lead to almost all conceivable legal consequences. For instance, the judge can invalidate the contract, change the price, suspend or change a clause in the contract, or grant injunctive relief, compensation of damages, the disgorgement of profits or a removal claim. We argue that if the principle of good faith is used to develop contract law into an instrument for redistributing wealth in favor of poor parties, this can destroy the concept of contract as a social mechanism for generating mutual gains for parties, which might lead to unwanted economic consequences in terms of efficiency losses. We argue that the principle of good faith must be carefully and reluctantly used to reconstruct the fully specified contract and that well-informed judges, who understand the factual environment of a contract well should ask how fair bur self-interested parties would have allocated the risk in a pre-contractual situation. If the courts restrict the application of the good faith principle to these functions, this provides elasticity that otherwise would not exist if courts would strictly use the rules laid down in black letter law. Moreover, it saves transactions costs and is therefore in line with economic reasoning. We look at the most important Turkish cases and find that the Turkish Supreme Court following Continental European doctrines of good faith actually uses this principle to curb opportunistic behavior of parties and not to achieve redistribution from the rich to the poor by way of interfering into contract law.     

情势变更原则在建设工程合同中的适用——德国建筑私法实践及其对我国的启示

交易基础障碍制度在德国民法学说史上历经百余年的发展锤炼,渐以成熟完善,并于2002年债法改革后法典化。其相比于我国的情势变更原则具有更加广泛的内涵与外延,在适用标准的界定上殊值借鉴。具体到建设工程施工合同领域中,需要首先通过合同解释规则确定合同约定的内容,其次要将合同约定的风险承担和法定的风险划分进行剥离,再次需要个案判断情势的变化是否"重大",最后要严格把握"不可苛求"、"牺牲临界"的标准。当事人主张适用交易基础障碍制度,首先须提出调整方案,调整的目的并非在于重置合同当事人之间的等价关系,而仅在于结束一方当事人"不可苛求"的履行状态;调整不成或债权人拒绝调整的,遭受不利益的一方当事人有权请求解除合同。     

专利权担保融资的法定限度与合约扩充

专利权担保融资是知识产权价值的一种表现形式.专利权的交换价值是其担保功能的法理基础.专利权担保的性质在法律上被界定为质押,专利权担保的效力以登记为要件.目前理论认为,专利权担保为介于抵押与质押的中间形态或接近抵押,其效力以担保合同生效为要件.由于专利权担保融资属于间接、非证券无形资产融资,因此受到三个方面的基本规则约束,即专利规则、担保规则和贷款规则.在不违反法律强制性规定和公共利益的前提下,专利权人与贷款人之间可以根据设定担保的实际需要依据合同自由原则补充法律规定之不足.     

Harmonisation by Example: European Laws against Unfair Commercial Practices

This examination of the implementation of the European Union's Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices in the United Kingdom by the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 assesses the likely impact on the national law governing the marketing practices of rogue traders, including its ambition to simplify and extend legal protection, and the likely success of the Directive in achieving the harmonisation of the laws and practices regulating marketing in Europe. In particular, the discussion evaluates the regulatory strategy of the Directive in its attempt to secure uniform laws through the combination of principles, rules, and concrete examples of prohibited practices. The paper also investigates the likely impact of the Regulations on the private law of contract and tort and the possibilities for improvements in a consumer's personal right of redress.     

著作权合同中作者权益保护的规则取舍与续造

著作权合同规则和集体协商所需中介组织的双重缺失,导致我国作者在著作权合同领域面临诸多不公平待遇时处于无法可依的境地。比较法上作者权益保护的制度安排,又因不同国家相关产业力量对比差异而有不同路径。在缺乏本土基本规则支撑的情况下,更符合我国产业特点的解决路径,一方面是根据比较法经验来重新校准作者权益的保护范畴,避免以事后规则直接保障作者收益,通过事前规则增助作者的自治能力;另一方面是运用法教义学的方法从著作权法合同章和民法典合同编两个领域完成对作者权益保护的解释学续造。应将著作权法合同章中规定的许可或转让的权利种类作为合同成立的“必要之点”,要求合同条款明确列举每项权利的使用范围、目的、期限和版税标准。应在区分无偿和有偿的著作权专有许可合同的基础上,类推适用民法典合同编中合同终止的一般规则和相关有名合同终止权来完成对作者利益保护规则的续造。     

金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心

金融衍生交易特别是场外衍生交易规则与传统民商法之间的冲突是大陆法系国家普遍存在的问题。衍生工具作为一种新的合同类型,与传统合同的显著区别在于"当前订约、未来履行",从中派生出特殊的履约风险、缔约风险等一系列新问题。对赌、显失公平等法律争议正是基于衍生合约本身的特性而产生;而通常被称为"衍生交易规则"的一整套制度实际上是市场自发创设的防范履约风险的安排。在此,场外衍生交易与场内衍生交易之间没有本质区别,英美法系与大陆法系需要应对同样的问题。通过还原衍生交易规则背后的法律逻辑,可以构筑一个以"合同"为中心的衍生交易法律问题的分析框架,容纳从合同效力、履行、缔约到信息披露、监管等一系列问题。以合同为主要处理对象的民商法应扩张自身的体系以容纳实践中产生的新合同类型,从而为整个金融衍生交易法律规则体系提供坚实的基础。     

论私录视听资料的证据能力

未经当事人同意而录制的视听材料有可能涉及被录制者的隐私.之所以规定不得采用法律所禁止的方法收集视听资料,是为了保护当事人的隐私权.传统理论认为侵犯被录制者隐私权的私录资料不具有合法性.但隐私与隐私权并不相同,对私录资料证据能力的认识须从解释论与立法论的角度分别考虑.从解释论角度,如果私录资料侵犯了他人的隐私权,那么该证据资料便会因不具备合法性而被排除在诉讼之外;如果只涉及隐私而未侵犯隐私权,便可具有证据能力.而在立法论,那些即使侵犯了隐私权的私录资料也同样具有证据能力,可以作为认定案件事实的根据,但这并不妨碍隐私权人在本案诉讼结束之后对侵权人另行提起诉讼保护自己的隐私权.     

违法性理论:一个反思性检讨

违法性是刑法中的一个重要问题,也是犯罪的一个重要属性。大陆法系刑法学和苏俄刑法学对此采用了两种完全不同的处理方法:大陆法系刑法学将违法性作为犯罪成立的条件之一纳入犯罪论体系,而苏俄刑法学则在犯罪概念中讨论刑事违法性,并因受到社会危害性概念的遮蔽,违法性理论的内涵极度匮乏。本文通过对大陆法系刑法学与苏俄刑法学中的违法性理论进行比较,阐述了违法性的内容,并主张将违法性纳入犯罪构成体系,在违法性理论上进行拨乱反正。     

债权的侵权法保护及其法理构成

侵权法中的权利并不以社会典型公开性为必要,权利属性的界定取决于归属效能与排他功能。以此为判断标准,债权基于其不同的面向,在侵权法中具有双重属性:债权的归属具有权利的属性,其利益内容主要表现为处分及受领;债权的实现利益不属于债权的归属效能,也不具有排他功能,具有利益的属性。后者进一步体现为实现给付利益相关之债务人意志、责任财产、给付客体及债务人人身。无论是作为权利还是利益的债权,不当得利制度、契约制度等法律部门固然能够对第三人侵害债权提供部分救济,但是从法理上及交易需求角度看均不排斥侵权法的救济;而且基于侵权法的救济与制裁功能,债权的侵权法保护有其必要性。从债权的侵权法保护的构成要件角度看,侵害债权归属即可征引违法性,其主观过错并不限于故意;对于债权给付利益的侵害,因债权并不拘束第三人,因此其违法性应以行为不法为判断基准,经由制定法对行为之特别禁令或违反公序良俗完成违法性之判断,而主观要件原则上仍然需要存在致损之故意。     

Supply chains,contractual governance and certification regimes

Contractual governance of the food supply chain is on the rise. In this paper we focus on a particular set of instruments for transnational governance of food supply chains: transnational contracts and agreements. Looking at transnational contracts as instruments for implementation of transnational private regulation, we compare different mechanisms for the enforcement of safety and sustainability standards in global food supply chains. We conclude that the regime of contractual remedies follows different logics from the ones of regulatory and certification regime. (1) The former aims at redressing the victim of the breach inducing compliance through a re-active approach; whereas the latter pro-actively tries to restore compliance with regulatory process in order to pursue regulatory objectives. (2) The former focuses mainly on products, the latter on process. (3) The former concentrates on individual transactions while the latter focuses on the interdependence of contractual relationships along the chain and creates collective governance mechanisms. This paper suggests that the combination of the two sets of remedies may reinforce coordination and cooperation along the chain, therefore improving the level of quality, safety or sustainability of certified production. A higher level of awareness about the impact of standards and certification on the contract rules on remedies can have other positive consequences: it may improve contract drafting, leading the parties to coordinate different remedial systems when addressing the consequences of the breach and the ones of certification remedies; it may help courts to better define the scope and preconditions of contractual remedies and their effects on transnational regulation; it may guide law makers and standard setting institutions, when providing principles, rules or guidance concerning the consequences of the breach within contracts and along the chain, particularly in the food sector. From this perspective, the current work conducted by Unidroit and Fao for the production of a Legal Guide on contract farming could represent an important opportunity to define the links between multiple remedial regimes in food chains.