我国缔约过失责任的立法现状及完善对策

《合同法》明确规定了缔约过失责任，但由于规定比较简单，操作性不强，导致司法实践中运用缔约过失责任较少。为全面、合理地规范当事人之间的缔约行为，提高缔约过失责任制度的法律地位，合理确定缔约过失责任的适用范围，     

缔约过失责任制度研究

缔约过失责任对于调整缔约过程中双方当事人的行为,保护缔约期间合同当事人的合法权益和实现合同的最大价值化起到了重要的作用。但现行《合同法》规定的缔约过失责任在许多方面仍存在不足有待完善。本文探讨了缔约过失责任的基础理论,并总结了我国立法和实践中存在的问题,指出了缔约过失责任的完善途径。     

浅论缔约过失责任

缔约过失责任又称先契约责任，是在缔结契约过程中一方或双方违背了协助、通知、照顾、保护、忠实等先契约义务，使相对方基于对契约会有效成立的信赖而受到损失。 　　建立缔约过失责任制度的意义在于促进市场经济的发展，维护市场交易的安全，有利于交易的促成。在没有合同关系或合同没有生效的情况下，当交易一方或双方遭受损害时，无法追究当事人的合同责任。而缔约过失责任制度的建立，弥补了这种缺陷，使交易双方一旦在市场交易中受到损失，能及时以多种方式寻求法律保护。 　　缔约过失责任问题，自罗马法以来，一直成为立法及学者…     

缔约过失责任研究

缔约过失责任是指在合同订立过程中,缔约当事人因违反基于诚实信用原则产生的先合同义务而给对方当事人造成损害时所应承担的民事责任。随着市场经济的繁荣,订约方式的多样化,许多纠纷发生在缔约阶段。无契约则无责任,这种看似对契约自由的绝对尊重,实质上却使契约法背离了实质的、真正意义上的自由。为此,本文在借鉴前人研究成果的基础上试图对缔约过失责任制度的历史沿革、概念、请求权基础等问题进行初步的探讨与分析,以期对完善我国缔约过失责任能有所帮助。     

缔约过失责任研究

缔约过失责任是指在合同订立过程中，缔约当事人因违反基于诚实信用原则产生的先合同义务而给对方当事人造成损害时所应承担的民事责任。随着市场经济的繁荣，订约方式的多样化，许多纠纷发生在缔约阶段。无契约则无责任，这种看似对契约自由的绝对尊重，实质上却使契约法背离了实质的、真正意义上的自由。为此，本文在借鉴前人研究成果的基础上试图对缔约过失责任制度的历史沿革、概念、请求权基础等问题进行初步的探讨与分析，以期对完善我国缔约过失责任能有所帮助。     

缔约过失责任的立法现状

自１８６１年德国法学家耶林在《耶林法学年 报》第４卷发表了《缔约上过失,契约无效 与未臻完全之时之损害赔偿》一文之后,有关缔约过失责任的理论研究及立法实践并不断被推向深入。我国学者在借鉴大量的国外研究成果的基础上,结合我国的实际情况,亦对此理论进行了广泛的研究,无论这些研究的成效如何,其对推动我国的立法及正确理论的产生无疑具有一定的积极意义。本文力求从法律概念间内在的逻辑联系来阐述缔约过失责任,通过分析我国立法实践的现状来说明我国有关缔约过失责任立法的不足。 一、缔约过失责任的概念及其性质 虽然法学…     

浅析缔约过失责任的独立性

缔约过失责任最早由德国法学家耶林提出。之后,被各国法学界广泛关注采纳,我国《合同法》中也规定了缔约过失责任。缔约过失责任是债法体系中不可缺少的一项制度,它所保护的是人们在交往过程中所形成的信赖利益,有其独立的成立条件和适用范围,我们完全可以把它作为一项独立于侵权责任、违约责任等的债权制度单独加以规定,从而使债法体系更加完善。     

论缔约过失责任

随着社会的发展,社会关系的日益复杂化,传统民法中的违约责任和侵权责任是否还能全面覆盖责任人的民事责任已经是一个值得探讨的问题了,本文拟介绍缔约过失责任的详细内容。     

缔约过失责任

缔约过失责任是合同法新规定的一种民事责任,它是当代民法体系中的一个重要组成部分。它的确立对维护缔约过程中双方当事人的利益具有十分重要的意义。然而,这一制度在我国的民法中还不是很完善,它的诸多内容在很多方面存在着争议。本文通过超市购物的案例对缔约过失责任的概念及法律内涵作出阐述,并就相关责任进行一些探讨。     

Scope of liability: the vanishing distinction between negligence and strict liability

The duty-of-care requirement cannot be used anymore as the touchstone to differentiate negligence from strict liability because it can be found in many forms of the latter. Duty of care is smuggled into strict liability hidden under the scope of liability requirement (traditionally called “proximate causation”). As far as the scope of liability requirement is common to negligence and to many forms of strict liability, there is a fairly large common ground to both liability rules, and consequently the marginal Hand formula is applied to both rules. Indeed, under a negligence rule, the marginal Hand formula is applied twice: first to assess whether or not the defendant did breach his or her duty of care, and, second, to delimit whether or not the defendant’s behavior was a proximate cause of the harm suffered by the victim. However, under a strict liability rule, the Hand formula is applied only once when the proximate causation question is raised. Traditional law and economics analysis has almost always taken the normative question raised by the causation requirement as given, which is a potential major problem due to the importance of scope of liability or proximate causation in legal practice. Defining the scope of liability, that is to say, the boundaries of the pool of potential defendants, is the basic legal policy decision for each and every liability rule. In the normative model presented in this paper, the government first chooses efficient scope of liability, and given the scope of liability, the government then decides the liability rule and damages that guarantee efficient precaution. In the article, most known scope of liability rationales developed by both common law and civil law systems are discussed in order to show the substantial common ground between negligence and strict liability.     

现代劳动法中雇员违约责任的弱化

现代劳动法以弱者保护规则为根本,在劳动合同的特殊性和“效率违约”理论的影响下,形成了雇员违约责任承担的不完全性和不充分性,并因此导致了与民事违约责任完全不同的“责任弱化”的态势。     

论合同订立中的格式之战

在现代市场经济条件下,格式文本在合同订立过程中发挥着前所未有的作用,商人们往往无视双方格式文本内容的差异,照常进行交易,从而引发“格式之战”。为平息“格式之战”,各国基本上都经历了“镜像规则”──“最后一论规则”──“第一枪规则”──“相互击倒”的道路。我国《合同法》没有对“格式之战”问题作出规定,因而应在充分考虑合同法效益、正义的价值目标和现代合同法特征的基础上积极地进行完善。     

商标权利益选择的合理性评价

权利是法律所保护的一种利益。商标权虽然是私权 ,是为保护私人利益而设定的权利 ,但事实上 ,商标权上一直交织着私人利益和公共利益 ,二者之间的界限是一种朦胧而抽象的主观观念。本文通过对选择私人利益的商标权独占主义及选择公共利益的商标权工具主义的评价 ,认为商标权的价值目标应该是在动态的环境中平衡私益与公益 ,单纯对任何一方的“取”与“舍”都是不科学的。这也是合理性评价的任务之所在。     

Governmental liability for breach of contract

Government contracts are subject to a number of legal rulesthat have no private sector analogues and that have receivedvirtually no attention from law and economics scholar. Thisarticle explores these rules from an economic perspective, withspecial attention to the leading modern case on the subject,United States v. Winstar. The analysis emphasizes a number ofdifferences between governmental and private actors that haveimportant implications for the wisdom of applying conventionalbreach of contract remedies to the government. These differencesafford plausible efficiency justifications, in our view, formany of the most important doctrines governing government contracts.Some of these doctrines help to impede the use of long-termcontracts to insulate inefficient rent-seeking arrangementsagainst subsequent attack, some seem to prevent the governmentfrom inefficiently contracting away its ability to respond tonew information, and others seem to work a sensible allocationbetween the government and private contractors of the risk thatgovernment may change its policies. Not all doctrines and decisionscan be justified in this fashion, however, and we do not meanto claim that the existing body of law is in any sense optimal.Indeed, the Winstar decision itself seems quite mistaken froman economic standpoint. The considerations that we develop haveimplications for a number of related legal issues. Not all ofthese implications are developed here, but we do consider modernlitigation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitutionas well as the recent academic debate about the wisdom of retroactivetaxation.     

论医疗事故技术鉴定意见的证明力及存在的问题

符合法律规范的医疗事故技术鉴定意见在行政处理医疗纠纷上具有证明力,可以从鉴定人资格和条件、鉴定程序和方法等方面予以印证。但当其作为诉讼中的法定证据鉴定意见使用时,其证据力方面还存在一定问题,尤其与新修订的《民事诉讼法》存在不一致,应予完善,以提高其证据力。     

Strict liability versus negligence when the injurer's activity involves positive externalities

In this paper, I assert that, if the potential injurer’s activity involves externalities unrelated to accidents, the strict liability rule minimizing only the social cost associated with accidents does not induce the social optimum. I also demonstrate that if the externalities are positive, the negligence rule can perform better than the strict liability rule by selecting the due care appropriately, whereas it cannot if the externalities are negative. This argument can be applied to the product liability law. JEL Classification K13     

劳动合同法律适用问题研究

劳动合同的法律适用问题,一直存有争议.<劳动合同法>颁布实施后,争议并未随之消除.只有处理好劳动合同的法律适用问题,实践中才能公平、有效的解决劳动争议.笔者以劳动合同与雇佣契约的关系为切入点,试图通过阐明劳动合同的法律属性,来明确劳动合同关系的法律适用准则.