论债之本质的事实状态性定位

On the Determination of the Factual Condition of the Nature of Obligation

有关债的本质理论界有两种学说,即纯粹义务说与责任效力说。但是此两种理论皆无法解决自身的理论周延性问题,同时也无法解释合同法实践中的诸多理论难题。将债的本质认定为一种事实状态性的法律关系,既可以发挥其对私法自治、公正秩序等价值的保障作用,同时也可以解决关于诸多相关具体制度如负担行为与处分行为的区分、自然之债与无责任之债的认同等问题。同时,债的本质的事实状态性定位对于解决我国《合同法》第132条的理论困境也有重大意义。

There are two theories on the nature of obligation, namely the theory of pure obligation and the theory of the validity of obligation. Neither of the two theories can solve the problem of theoretical dilem- mas, nor can they explain the numerous theoretical dilemmas in the practice of contract law. Treating the na- ture of obligation as factual legal relationship can safeguard the autonomy and other values of private law while at the same time solve many specific institutional problems such as the distinction between obligation bearing and disposition of obligation. Meanwhile, it is also of great significance in solving the theoretical dilemma arising from Article 132 of the Chinese Contract Law.