论重大误解中的相对人参与

On the Involvement of the Counterparts in Gross Misunderstandings

由于我国《民法典》第一百四十七条与相关司法解释均未明确重大误解的认定应否考虑相对人参与,致使“考虑”和“不考虑”的争议,在实务界和理论界中长期存在。通过比较分析“考虑说”和“不考虑说”在争议案型中各自所持观点的合理性可知,在表示错误的场合,令表意人承担错误风险缺乏伦理和效率层面的支撑,故而无论相对人是否参与,都应肯认表意人享有错误撤销权。而在动机错误的场合,性质错误作为救济事由的观点有违重大误解的制度语境,取而代之以相对人参与作为动机错误的撤销要件,不仅在风险分配上更为妥适,还能够填补实证法的体系漏洞。在法教义学的视角下,表示错误和动机错误的区分仍有规范价值,表示错误可撤销的原则应予维系,可得撤销的动机错误则应以相对人参与者为限。此外,“考虑说”内在地要求在撤销后的损害赔偿上采过错责任,但为了保护相对人的利益,应对表意人的过错作宽泛解释。

Since Article 147 of The Civil Code of PRC and the corresponding judicial interpretation have not clarifed whether or not to consider the involvement of the counterparts in the formation of gross misunderstanding,the controversy between"consideration"and"non-consideration"has existed for a long time in the practical and theoretical circles.By comparatively analyzing the reasonableness of the theories held by the"consideration"and"non-consideration"in the disputed issue,it can be seen that,in the case of expressive mistakes,it lacks morality and effciency support to make the expressor of intent bear the risk of mistakes,and therefore,regardless of whether the counterpart is involved or not,the expressor of intent should be recognized as having the right to revoke mistakes.On the other hand,in the case of motivated mistakes,the viewpoint of natural mistakes as the cause of relief is contrary to the context of the institution of gross misunderstanding,and replacing it with the participation of the counterparts as the requirement of revocation of motivated mistakes is not only more appropriate in the allocation of risk,but also able to fll the gaps in the system of current law.From the perspective of legal dogmatics,the distinction between expressive and motivated mistakes still has normative value,and the principle of revocability of expressive mistakes should be maintained,while the revocability of motivated mistakes should be limited to the involvement of the counterparts.In addition,while the"consideration theory"inherently called for fault-based liability for damages after revocation,the fault of the expressor of intent should be interpreted broadly in order to protect the interests of the participation of the counterparts.