论缔约过失中的交易机会损失 ——基于10个典型案件的分析与展开

现行法对缔约过失责任的赔偿范围不明确。司法实践对于交易机会损失是否属于缔约过失责任的赔偿范围以及交易机会损失的赔偿范围之认定存在诸多矛盾。交易机会损失属于缔约过失责任的赔偿范围,与履行利益存在差别。实践中交易机会损失的计算方法决定了其不会超过履行利益,但需避免重复赔偿并且贯彻损害赔偿法的一般原则。     

论信赖保护原则

信赖保护原则是德国行政法院在授益行政行为的撤销判决中发展起来的,后经日本及我国台湾地区的效仿、继受与发展,现在已经发展成为大陆法系国家行政法的一般原则.确立信赖保护原则对于建立诚信政府,实现行政法治具有重要的意义.在我国,信赖保护原则只是在<行政许可法>等法律中有所体现,尚无法律加以明文规定.目前,我国学者对信赖保护原则进行了一定的研究,但尚不够具体、深入,在这种情况下加强对信赖保护原则的研究具有重要意义.     

缔约责任构成要件探析——兼评我国《合同法》第42条、43条、58条之规定

我国立法对缔约责任构成要件规定的不明确,理论上对此看法并不统一,所以有必要对缔约责任构成要件予以探讨.为平衡当事人间的利益,均衡交易安全保护与鼓励交易的立法政策,缔约责任的承担原则上应要求责任人有过错,同时应在特殊场合承认无过错责任.在判断过错时,要在个案中考虑责任人对缔约对方的信赖能否预见.受害人的信赖是缔约责任产生的前提,但缔约责任的发生与合同是否成立有效无关.在因果关系上,信赖利益受损与致损缔约行为间的因果关系具有间接性.     

刑事诉讼法时间效力规则研究

我国刑事诉讼立法及相关规范未对刑事诉讼法的时间效力问题予以明确,使得法秩序变迁下刑事程序的新旧流转出现了规范适用疑难。对此,学界通常认为应当适用程序从新原则,但相关理解与界说存在问题。在规范论上,基于法律即行适用与法不溯及既往,可以推导出刑事诉讼法的时间效力适用行为时法原则。对于尚未终结的诉讼,因新程序与旧事实可能无法相容,适用行为时法难免对旧事实造成影响,但这只是不真正溯及,不违反法不溯及既往原则。在立法论上,除应明确行为时法原则外,由于法律的不真正溯及仍可能实质损害法不溯及既往背后的法安定性及信赖保护原则,立法者宜通过信赖利益保护理论,预先识别需要保护的信赖利益,继而选择适当的立法方案将此类例外纳入刑事诉讼法体系。     

Marginalization as non-contribution

This paper examines the phenomenon of marginalization through the lens of the relatively neglected concept of contribution. It argues that the opportunity to contribute positively to others’ lives is an important component of human well-being which promotes the goods of meaning, self-respect and reliance. Where individuals enjoy that opportunity, they are on that account less marginalized. Contributory practices channelled through publicly recognized median institutions (between the state and the personal sphere) are especially valuable.     

Restitutionary Remedies in the Contractual Context

Contracting parties sometimes have a claim to recover money paid in advance, or for reasonable payment for work done under the contract, commonly described as restitutionary remedies. This claim arising out of a contract is nowadays generally regarded as a non‐contractual, unjust enrichment claim governed by the modern law of unjust enrichment, by contrast with a contractual claim for damages or specific performance. The article argues that the claim is contractual, and that this is relevant to determining when it should be available and what the measure of recovery should be. In particular, it is argued that this follows from the proper understanding of the form of agreement made by contracting parties. The argument involves discussion of doctrinal categories such as contract and unjust enrichment, the relationship between primary and remedial rights in contract, the nature of contractual agreement, and the protection of reliance in contract.