金融机构适当性义务纠纷中的过失相抵法理  

Legal Principle of Contributory Negligence Occurs in the Dispute About Suitability Obligation of Financial Institution

作　　者：尚连杰[1] Shang Lianjie

机构地区：[1]南京大学法学院

出　　处：《法学》2023年第4期90-103,共14页Law Science

基　　金：国家社科基金项目“动态体系论的原理结构与私法应用研究”(项目批准号:22BFX178)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：当金融机构违反适当性义务时,应当承认过失相抵规则的适用空间,从而实现买者当心和卖者尽责两项原则之间的平衡。既有的司法实践揭示了当事人在分担损失时应考虑的要素,虽具有一定的合理性,但也存在相当的恣意空间。过错、原因力、风险三项要素的综合权衡方案的可操作性存疑,应转向过错要素的单一权衡方案。具言之,应区分投资者类型、认知能力和判断能力的大小以及金融机构类型,对双方的过错程度进行判断。在此基础之上,区分投资者与金融机构均为故意或重大过失、金融机构为故意或重大过失而投资者为一般过失、金融机构为一般过失而投资者为故意或重大过失、投资者与金融机构均为一般过失四种情形,确定更为精确的损失分担方案。When the financial institution violates the duty of suitability,the application of the rule of negligence offset should be recognized,so as to achieve a proper balance between the two principles of caveat emptor and seller's due diligence.The established judicial practices reveal the elements that should be considered when allocating the loss between the parties,which are reasonable to a certain extent,but there is also considerable room for arbitrariness.The operability of a combined weighing scheme for the three elements of fault,causative potency and risk is questionable.Therefore,there should be a shift towards a single weighing scheme for the element of fault.To be more specific,a distinction should be made between the types of investors,the level of cognitive ability and judgment,and the types of financial institutions in order to make a specific determination of the degree of fault of both parties.On this basis,a more precise scheme of loss allocation should be determined by distinguishing between four scenarios:both the investor and the financial institution are intentional or gross negligent,the financial institution is intentional or gross negligent and the investor is general negligent,the financial institution is general negligent and the investor is intentional or gross negligent,and both the investor and the financial institution are general negligent.

关 键 词：适当性义务 过失相抵 过错 损失分担 

分 类 号：D922.287[政治法律—经济法学]