缔约过程中的磋商义务及其责任

Duties and Obligations in Contract Negotiation

《合同法》第42条等规定了我国合同法上的缔约过失责任制度,但并没有明确规定当事人的磋商义务或恶意中断磋商的责任问题。比较法上的发展表明,肯定恶意中断磋商的责任,已成为越来越多的立法选择。我国《合同法》第42条第3项"有其他违背诚实信用原则的行为"这一规定,也为中断磋商行为纳入缔约过失责任范畴提供了解释上的可能性;法院实践中亦有类似案例肯定了此等情形的缔约过失责任。在认定是否构成不当中断磋商责任时,应保持谨慎之原则,以免对意思自治这一民法私法自治工具构成威胁;是否违反诚信和是否产生了合理信赖是责任认定的关键所在。恶意中断磋商时承担的损害赔偿责任范围,原则上应限于信赖利益之赔偿,但在某些情形亦可以将履行利益赔偿涵盖在内。但其决定性的因素并不是信赖利益还是履行利益之区分,而是是否存在《合同法》第42条规定的因果关系。

Article 42 in Contract Law establishes the fault liability system of negotiating,but there are no clearly defined duties of negotiation and obligations of deliberately breaking off the contract negotiations.The development of comparative law shows that establishing the obligations of deliberately breaking off the contract negotiations has turned out to be increasingly legislative choices.＂Other acts contrary to the principle of good faith＂ in Article 42 Item 3 in Contract Law provides the possibility of the interpretation of the issue at point;similar court cases in practice also confirm the fault liability.While judging the responsibility of the undue breaking off of the contract negotiations,judges are supposed to be cautions enough to avoid threatening one of the principles,the Civil Law Autonomy;the key to identification of the obligations lies in whether the act poses the breach of trust and whether it leads to reasonable trust.The scope of compensation for damages caused by the deliberate breaking off of the contract negotiations,in principle,should be limited to the interest of the trust,but in some cases,compensation may also involve the benefit that may be accrued from the performance of contracts.But the decisive factor does not consist in the distinction between reliance interest and performance interest,but in the cause and effect stipulated in Article 42 of Contract Law.