因第三人欺诈与第三人胁迫订立合同效力认定的应然路径  

The proper way to determine the validity of a contract concluded due to fraud and coercion by a third party

作　　者：张浩然 Zhang Haoran

机构地区：[1]上海交通大学凯原法学院,上海200030

出　　处：《南海法学》2022年第3期47-57,共11页The South China Sea Law Journal

摘　　要：从合同当事人间利益平衡的角度出发,《民法典》第一百五十条对第三人胁迫的规定因未完整保护善意合同相对人的利益,可被识别为法律漏洞。对此,可采取类推适用委托人介入权的相关规范加以填补。表意人应向善意合同相对人披露第三人,善意合同相对人突破合同相对性直接要求第三人赔偿信赖利益损失。因此,第三人欺诈与胁迫订立合同效力认定问题的解决仍应坚持以区分模式为基础,只是增设表意人的披露义务与善意合同相对人的介入权,以此实现利益的平衡,这与民法保障私益与意思自治的价值选择相符。According to the aim of keeping the balance of interests between contracting parties,the Article 150of Civil Code should be identified as a legal loophole,because it cannot provide a whole protection for the interests of a kind contracting party under the circumstances which the third party has coerced the other one into signing the contract. And this legal loophole can be filled by applying the relevant norms with regard to the self-entering rights of mandator. The representor should disclose the third party to the kind contracting party. Hence,the kind contracting party can break the relativity of contract and claim the compensation for the loss of reliance interests from the third party. Therefore,the solution to the problem of determining the effectiveness of fraudulent and coercive contracts by the third party should still be based on the distinction model. The new approach only adds a disclosure obligation for the representor and a self-entering right for the kind contracting party in order to achieve the balance of interests. It is in accord with the private property protection and the autonomy of will in the civil law field.

关 键 词：第三人欺诈 第三人胁迫 区分模式 统一模式 应然路径 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]