检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:李宇[1]
机构地区:[1]上海财经大学法学院
出 处:《中外法学》2019年第5期1270-1298,共29页Peking University Law Journal
摘 要:现行法关于后合同义务的规定在义务期限、责任性质、归责原则上存在漏洞或模糊之处,并与债法其他义务间形成体系违反.后合同义务在司法实务中呈现出大规模误用、滥用,鲜见积极功能.后合同义务可分为保护义务与给付义务,前者与侵权法功能重合,不具有必要性;后者超出侵权法范围,但有违私法自治及平等原则,不利于劳动者等经济生活中的弱者,欠缺正当性.德国法发明后合同义务有其特殊的法律背景,此种背景在我国法上并不存在,就此而言,后合同义务与先合同义务存在同类缺陷.有别于先合同义务的是,后合同给付义务的泛化,额外造成背离合同法基本原理之弊害.《民法典各分编(草案)》将之误认为债法一般义务,更非妥当.后合同义务折射出现代合同法效果与目的背离的通病,在立法方法及民法原理上均值得反思.There are loopholes or ambiguities in the provisions of the Contract Law and its judicial interpretation on post-contract obligations in terms of the duration of obligations,the nature of liabilities and the principle of imputation,and they are in systematic violation with other obligations of the law of obligation.Post-contract obligations have shown large-scale misuse and abuse in judicial practice,with few positive functions.Post-contract obligations can be divided into protection obligations and performance obligations.Protection obligations are unnecessary because they overlap with the functions of tort law.Performance obligations are unjustified because they violate the principle of private autonomy and equality in private law,which is detriment to protecting the weak in economic life such as workers.The invention of post-contract obligation in German law has its special legal background,which does not exist in Chinese law.In this regard,the post-contract obligation and the pre-contract obligation have the same defects.In addition,unlike the pre-contract obligation,the generalization of the post-contract obligation of performance results in the disadvantage of deviating from the basic principles of contract law.It is more inappropriate for the Civil Code Draft to regard post-contract obligations as general obligations of the law of obligations.The establishment and application of post-contract obligation reflects the common defect that consequence deviating from purpose in modern contract law.It is worth rethin-king on both legislative methodology and civil law jurisprudence.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.38