审计师对第三人过失性虚假陈述责任比较研究

一、问题的提出 一个人应对自己的行为负责,行为人因过失而侵害他人权益时,通常应对此负损害赔偿责任,但是为了保障行为人的自由,法律也要对行为人的义务和责任作出明确的界定,使其不必承担无法预测的、不确定的责任.     

Enterprise Liability: Justifying Vicarious Liability

In Lister v Hesley Hall [2002] 1 AC 215 the House of Lords reformedthe law on vicarious liability, in the context of a claim arisingover the intentional infliction of harm, by introducing the‘close connection’ test. The immediate catalystwas the desire to facilitate recovery of damages on the partof victims of child abuse. The precise form the revision assumedwas derived from two Canadian Supreme Court cases: Bazley vCurry [1999] 174 DLR (4th) 45 and Jacobi v Griffiths [1999]174 DLR (4th) 7. The Canadian jurisprudence contains a detailedreview of the policy factors underpinning the law of vicariousliability and expresses the view that the most significant ofthese is ‘enterprise liability’. This article attemptsto establish whether enterprise liability holds the same significancein the UK. And, on the assumption that it does, the articlegoes on to consider any difficulties that may ensue and anyfurther common law reforms that may result. In particular itconsiders whether the law on vicarious liability for independentcontractors is likely to change.     

机动车第三者责任强制保险的利益衡平问题研究

为配合我国《道路交通安全法》的实施,有关部门正在抓紧制定《机动车第三者责任强制保险条例》(以下简称“《强制保险条例》”)。而条例制定过程中最棘手的问题恐怕就是相关诸主体的利益冲突与衡平问题。就机动车第三者责任强制保险(以下简称“强制保险”)涉及的各方主体利益诉求及其博弈来说,应该坚持以公平正义、着重权利保护、有利于预防交通事故和适应我国国情等为原则,以妥善衡平各方利益,建立健全我国的强制保险制度。     

缔约过失责任的理论逻辑与实证注解

缔约过失责任是大陆法系国家普遍确立的一项制度。该项制度的确立有其内在的理论逻辑。一方面其生成于宏观社会意识形态,另一方面其滋生于微观"法权"衡平意识。该制度在法制实践中尚需科学界定和注解,其中包括构成要件、法律后果、责任承担方式及范围等。     

论公司经理对第三人的民事责任

经理作为公司的代理人,其以公司名义从事侵权等行为时应该对第三人承担个人责任,该责任性质宜采特殊侵权行为说,要求经理具有主观过错.在公司处于破产状态、拖欠职工退休金以及涉及到反垄断诉讼中等特殊情形下,公司经理对第三人民事责任具有特殊的政策考量和条件规则.我国的<公司法>及相应的特殊法应考虑引进公司经理对第三人民事责任制度.     

行政诉讼第三人研究

我国行政诉讼法对行政诉讼第三人只作出了原则性的规定,最高人民法院有关第三人的司法解释,也略嫌笼统,缺乏可操作性。其主要原因在于,学术界尚未对行政诉讼第三人某些深层次的理论问题达成共识。因此,对行政诉讼法所称“利害关系”进行科学定位,并回答目前实务界面临的一些难题,乃当务之急。如行政诉讼第三人有何特征,如何分类,行政主体是否可以作为第三人,第三人在诉讼中拥有何种法律地位,享有何种诉讼权利,承担何种诉讼义务等问题,有待进一步探讨。文章运用实证分析和理论分析相结合的方法,在对行政诉讼第三人进行科学分类的基础上,对上述问题进行了回答。     

董事对第三人责任三论

随着公司的发展,董事在公司治理中的地位日益突出。其拥有相当广泛的权力,就应当承担相应的义务。当董事违反这些义务而给第三人造成损失时,应与公司一道对第三人负连带赔偿责任。我国公司法应当借鉴两大法系国家的先进立法经验,对董事对第三人责任制度作出明确的规定。本文主要对该制度确立的理论依据、归责原则及构成要件等几个问题进行了研究,并对我国相关立法的完善提出了建议。     

论利他契约对契约当事人之效力

在利他契约 ,债权人在第三人未表示享有利益前可变更、撤销利益第三人约款 ;债权人有权请求债务人向第三人给付 ,在债务人不履行债务时 ,可寻求司法救济 ;同时 ,债权人有义务确保债务人向第三人给付。债务人应依据诚信原则全面向第三人履行债务 ,否则应向债权人承担违约责任 ,向第三人承担损害赔偿责任。同时 ,债务人可就契约所生抗辩 ,对抗第三人。     

To What Extent Do Third Parties Influence Business Compliance?

Regulatory scholars have increasingly observed that it is not only public regulatory agencies and official enforcement action that motivate and enforce businesses' compliance with the law; in many situations, certain third parties may have greater capacity and power to motivate and enforce compliance with the law than do official regulatory agencies. This paper examines the extent to which businesses' worries about, and perceptions of pressure from, various third parties influence their internal compliance management activities and moral commitment in relation to complying with the objectives of competition and consumer protection law. Using data from a survey of 999 large Australian businesses, we find that businesses worry a lot about the reactions of a range of third parties including customers, shareholders, employees, and business partners to non-compliance. We find little evidence that these worries have much impact on what businesses actually do. However, perceptions of risk of complaints do influence what they do.     

机动车交通事故责任强制保险疑难问题研究

我国的机动车交通事故责任强制保险制度自建立以来一直饱受社会各界争议。在2010年和2011年的全国人大会上，全国人大代表先后对提高交强险责任限额、取消赔偿限额等问题提出司法改革建议。本文对有关受害第三人问题、保险公司的责任限额及诉讼地位和责任免除等机动车交通事故责任强制保险若干疑难问题作了探讨。     

Liability for failing to rescue

Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of responsibility. There are convincing arguments for some sort of legal recognition of a duty to rescue, but these arguments do not support tort liability. Nor is a case for tort liability made with the argument that a growth of tort law in this direction would be compatible with the values most centrally involved in the division between torts and contracts. Furthermore, there is a case against tort liability — namely, that the purpose of tort liability is to compensate, that there are certain sorts of situations in which compensation is apposite, and that failure to rescue does not fit into these categories. Criminal liability is the appropriate way for the law to recognize a duty to rescue.     

Justifying Compensation for Frustrated Legitimate Expectations

That government agencies and public bodies can be liable for damages when they induce and then frustrate people’s legitimate expectations is an important and distinctive feature of administrative law in Europe. This article sets out to establish a set of moral principles and ideals that might justify this legal institution. The notion of security of expectations found in the work of utilitarian writers provides a starting point. Having examined the strengths and weaknesses of this approach, I then turn to consider an alternative argument based on finding a solution to the problem of credible commitments. Finally, I look for suitable moral arguments in the liberal and Kantian political theorising of John Rawls. I argue that if we see the function of the rule of law as not merely to maximise aggregate utility and to make policymakers’ decisions seem credible but also to ensure Justice as Fairness for individuals, then this provides a more robust and satisfactory way to justify the liability of public bodies for legitimate expectations they induce and then frustrate.     

论婚姻法中的第三者责任

在婚姻法中建立第三者责任制度，是适应实践发展、维护社会和谐的需要，这也与刑法惩罚重婚罪中的第三人保持了一致。但并不是介入他人婚姻关系的第三者都要承担责任，要严格限定第三者承担责任的构成要件，以划分道德调整与法律调整的界限。第三者可以与过错配偶承担连带赔偿责任或单独承担赔偿责任，但第三者承担赔偿责任不以造成他人婚姻破裂为前提。     

论受害人有过错的数人侵权责任分担

受害人过错参与数人侵权责任分担的伦理基础是分配正义而不是公平.比较法上有"整理衡量说"、"整体衡量与单独衡量相结合说"、"连带责任再分配说"和"按份责任再分配说"四种不同的处理方案.我国侵权法上的受害人有过错的数人侵权责任分担应该按照数人侵权责任分担形态进行类型化.受害人过错不影响因主观关联共同侵权行为承担连带责任,但影响客观关联共同侵权行为和共同危险行为的连带责任适用.受害人过错不影响不真正连带责任形态的适用,但对补充责任形态中补充责任的成立和范围有一定的影响.