违背善良风俗故意致人损害与纯粹经济损失保护
于飞违背善良风俗故意致人损害与纯粹经济损失保护
Intentional Damage contrary to Public Policyand Protection of Pure Economic Loss
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：于飞
单位：中国政法大学
中文关键词：背俗;故意;纯粹经济损失
英文关键词：contrary to public policy;intention;pure economic loss
中文摘要：
“背俗故意致损”，是在权利和利益区分的基础上进行侵权法思考必然会遭遇的一个问题。德国民法典立法者设立第826条时，并不具有利用该条将法律与道德、习惯等法外规范相连通的直接目的。第826条的功能在后世学说的解释中形成了形式功能与实质功能两大功能群。试图为“背俗”设置实质判断标准的实质功能越来越受到学者的批判，并且在学说上出现了将纯粹经济损失保护作为第826条核心功能的观点。故意要件的本质是在缺乏社会典型公开性的纯粹经济损失领域维持行为人的预见性。法解释对该要件有所软化，但不宜将故意降低为重大过失。背俗要件的判断标准存在于判例之中。应当借鉴动态系统理论，以本土判例为素材，建构我国的“背俗故意致损”判例类型。纯粹经济损失概念并不表达一个真正的类别，而是包含了千差万别的事物，该领域不存在一般保护规则。“背俗故意致损”只是纯粹经济损失保护中的“最小值”。应当建立特别规范、保护性法律和“背俗故意致损”三层纯粹经济损失的立法保护体系。
英文摘要：
“Intentional damage contrary to public policy” is an issue unavoidable when one investigates tort law on the base of the distinction between protection of rights and protection of interests. At the time it was established, Article 826 of the German Civil Code was not meant to connect law with extra-legal norms such as morals and customs. Later doctrinal interpretations attributed two categories of functions to Article 826, that is, the essential and the formal functions. Legal scholars became increasingly critical of the essential functions with “contrary to public policy” as the criteria for judgment, and the viewpoint that the protection of pure economic loss as the core function of Article 826 emerged in the scholarship. The essence of the intention requirement is to maintain the foreseeability for the actor in the field of pure economic loss, which lacks of typical social obviousness. The intention requirement was diluted to some extent in legal interpretation, but it should not be reduced to gross negligence. The determination of whether action is “contrary to public policy” is not beyond the law, but also not within the constitution or the general legal spirit, but within case decisions. With reference to dynamic system theory, domestic cases should be used to build our case-types of what is “intentional damage contrary to public policy”. The concept of pure economic loss does not clearly delineate a category, but refers to a multitude of things, and for this there exists no general protective rule. “Intentional damage contrary to public policy” is just a minimum rule of the protection of pure economic loss. A protective system of three layers should be built up, comprising special statutes, protective statutes and “intentional damage contrary to public policy”.
全文阅读： 点击下载
