论《民法典》中合同与侵权的开放边界——以附随义务的变迁为视角  

On the Open Boundary between Contract and Torts in China’s Civil Code:From the Perspective of the Transformation of Accessory Obligation

作　　者：汪倪杰 WANG Nijie(Fudan University Law School)

机构地区：[1]复旦大学法学院

出　　处：《法学家》2022年第4期15-30,191,共17页The Jurist

基　　金：上海市哲学社会科学规划项目(2020EFX001);中国博士后科学基金会面上资助项目(2020M681129)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：《民法典》颁布后,合同、侵权两编的界限有待澄清。我国学者主张将保护义务排他性地划入侵权法,导致我国合同法救济范围收窄以及侵权法虚胖,在合同、侵权之间形成多层次竞合的复杂局面。从私法史看,该观点实为潘德克顿法学既有路径的重现。其背离了罗马法上合同、侵权自由竞合,中间地带以合同法调整为主,侵权法为辅的开放边界。现代德国法以附随义务学说实现了对潘德克顿法学的修补,向罗马法传统回调。据此,我国《民法典》应允许适度竞合的存在,但在交错区域应超越传统竞合理论,尽力统合违约及侵权责任的构成要件,达成统一的法律评价结果。After the promulgation of China’s Civil Code,the boundary of contract and torts needs to be clarified.One popular view claims that the obligation of protection should be exclusively classified from contract into torts.But it causes the functional contraction of contract and the puffiness of torts as well as the multi-level competitions between them.From the perspective of the history of civil law,this opinion is the recurrence of the Pandectists,which departed from the open boundary in Roman law,in which contract and torts were allowed to compete freely,but the crossing area was mainly regulated by contract with the supplement of torts.But modern German law repaired the defects of Pandectists by developing the doctrine of accessory obligation and turned back to the Roman tradition.Accordingly,China’s Civil Code should allow the existence of moderate competition in the crossing area but go beyond the traditional theories by integrating the factors of contractual and tortious liability to reach a unified legal result.

关 键 词：附随义务 保护义务 安全保障义务 法律竞合 民法典解释 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]