表达错误救济之正当性  

The Legitimacy of Remedies Granted to the Errors in Expression

作　　者：吴韵雨 

机构地区：[1]华东政法大学法律学院,上海

出　　处：《争议解决》2023年第6期2721-2728,共8页Dispute Settlement

摘　　要：重大误解作为法律行为效力瑕疵的主要事由之一,传统民法理论对其已有大量的研究,根植于意思主义与表示主义的分野,传统“二元论”与传统“一元论”的理论分歧应运而生,乃至现今也仍有新兴观点的涌现。但传统理论对表意人表达错误的救济,无论以撤销权赋予还是主张无效的方式,其背后原理的阐释均难免将法律后果重复归属表意人之嫌。而在救济原理未充分明晰的背景下,实务中也缺乏明确指引,导致要件的僵化套用乃至法官脱法造法的现象频发。因此,基于“二元论”表达错误与动机错误区分模式的前提,着重以公平原则论证表达错误之救济赋予的正当性,并初步设想等价性障碍、行为目的不达、因果关系三个要件联动与之配套,试图促进对我国重大误解制度救济表达错误,在原理层面的理解与相应的司法实践应用。As one of the main causes of defects in the effectiveness of legal acts, serious misunderstanding has been studied in large numbers of traditional civil law theories. Rooted in the distinction between subjective interpretation and objective interpretation, the theoretical divergence between traditional “dualism” and traditional “monism” emerged, and even now there are still emerging viewpoints. However, in the traditional theories, no matter the way of revocation or invalidity, the interpretation of the underlying principle of remedies for errors in expression will inevitably result in the repeated attribution of legal effects to the ideograph. But the background of the relief principle is not fully clear. There is also a lack of clear guidance in practice, which leads to the rigid application of elements and even the phenomenon of judges making laws out of law casually. Therefore, based on the premise of “dualism” to distinguish the errors of expression from the errors of motivation, this essay focuses on the fairness principle to demonstrate the legitimacy of relieving the errors of expression, and initially assume three elements of the equivalence barrier, behavioral purpose failure, causality relationship which are linkage and matching, trying to promote the understanding of principle level and the corresponding judicial practice application, in the aspect of remedies granted to the errors of expression by rule of the serious misunderstanding in our country.

关 键 词：重大误解 表达错误 撤销权 公平原则 

分 类 号：D92[政治法律—法学]