缔约过失与欺诈的关系再造--以错误理论的功能介入为辅线

Reconstructing Relationship between Fault in Contracting and Fraud——On the Auxiliary Line of Function Intervention of Mistake Theory

根据制度竞合论,缔约过失制度与欺诈制度之间存在评价矛盾,应通过承认"过失欺诈"予以解决。这一判断及其解决方案,在我国有重新检视之必要。对于欺诈撤销权与基于缔约过失的合同废除,请求权竞合说、欺诈规定优先说与折中方案均未能提供完善的解决之道,未从根本上消除评价矛盾。而作为因应之道的"过失欺诈"存在规范上的障碍,忽视了错误理论的适用性,尚欠充分的说服力。在解释论的背景之下,关于重大误解的规定可实现对"过失欺诈"的功能替代,以规制过失违反信息义务的行为。缔约过失责任在我国应醇化为金钱赔偿责任,从而实现与欺诈及重大误解规定的功能对接。缔约过失与欺诈的关系应为效果上的承接关系,以消解制度竞合视角下的评价矛盾。

According to the theory of system concurrence, there is an evaluation contradiction between fault in contracting and fraud, which should be resolved by recognizing 'negligent fraud'. This judgment and its solution should be re-examined in our country. For the relationship between withdrawal on ground of fraud and repeal on ground of fault in contracting, the three theories, namely competing claims, priority of fraud provision and compromise proposal, fail to provide complete solution, so that evaluation contradiction has not be eliminated fundamentally. As a response,the way of 'negligent fraud' has obstacles on provision and neglects the applicability of the mistake theory, so it does not have enough persuasion. Under the background of interpretation theory, provision on significant misunderstanding can replace 'negligent fraud' functionally to regulate negligent breach of information obligation. In order to achieve functional docking with provisions on fraud and significant misunderstanding, liability for fault in contracting should be perfected to damages for money in China. Relationship between fault in contracting and fraud should be function undertaking on effect. So the evaluation contradiction in the perspective of system concurrence can be eliminated.