缔约过失与欺诈的制度竞合——以欺诈的“故意”要件为中心
刘勇缔约过失与欺诈的制度竞合——以欺诈的“故意”要件为中心
On the Concurrence of Culpa in Contrahendo and Fraud
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：刘勇
单位：南京大学法学院
中文关键词：故意;制度竞合;过失的欺诈;信息提供义务
英文关键词：deliberate intention;concurrence of institutions;negligent fraud;duty to inform
中文摘要：
由于欺诈构成中的主观故意要件与缔约过失中的过失要件的对立, 我国合同法中的缔约过失与欺诈制度对于“缔约时隐匿信息或告知虚假信息”的情形作出了矛盾评价, 形成了典型的制度竞合。德国债法改革前后针对类似的制度竞合所展开的解释与立法均没有彻底解决二者之间的矛盾。欺诈中的“故意”要件是刑法中“行为无价值论”在民法中的体现, 并且其与“违法性”要件的界限暧昧不清, 导致了欺诈制度偏重于保护欺诈人的行动自由, 而非表意人的决定自由。考虑到缔约过失与欺诈的体系价值, 并不能简单地通过制度的删减来消除两者之间的制度竞合。正视故意要件的历史意义, 承认“过失的欺诈”, 方能在现有民法体系内保持逻辑的顺畅。“过失的欺诈”不仅在解释论上是可行的, 也能通过信息提供义务来确实地实现。
英文摘要：
The difference between “deliberate intention” and “negligence” leads to the contradiction between culpa in contrahendo and fraud in Chinese contract law in the assessment of the situation in which “one party to a contract conceals or falsifies factual information when entering into the contract”, which means not only the concurrence of different rights of claim, but also the conflict of the two institutions. The reform of German obligation law in 2001 has failed to find a thorough solution to the similar problem. The constitutive requirement of deliberate intention of fraud is the embodiment in civil law of the criminal law theory of anti-value acts and the distinction between the requirement of deliberate intention and the requirement of illegality has not yet been clarified even today. As a result, the institution of fraud emphasizes the protection of the freedom to act, rather than the autonomy of will. Therefore, it differs from other institutions that deal with the defects of declaration, such as mistake, and causes contradictions in the law on declaration of intention. Considering the institutional values of culpa in contrahendo and fraud, it's hard to say that such contradictions could be easily eliminated by simply deleting the rules on culpa in contrahendo or those on fraud. The rationality of the requirement of deliberate intention should be understood with its historical overtones. If one of the parties to a contract “negligently” conceals or falsifies factual information, the other party should be given the right of claim based on the former's “fraud”. With regard to current rules, the institution of negligent fraud provides a possible way for upholding the integrity and the internal logic of the system of Chinese contract law, which can be accomplished through further interpretation of the current rules on the one hand, and the acceptance of the duty to inform on the other hand.
全文阅读： 点击下载
