合同法与有过失规则的目的解释——以“过错”认定为中心

The Teleological Interpretation of Contributory Negligence Doctrine in Contract Law-Centered on the Determination of“Fault”

合同法与有过失规则中过错的认定仰赖于对规则的目的解释。从合同法对当事人的履行利益、信赖利益和固有利益的保护来看,与有过失规则有三项规范目的:敦促当事人通力合作以助履行;指引当事人在合理信赖的基础上行事;保护当事人对相对方自我保护固有利益的信赖。在规范目的指引下,与有过失规则中的过错可以类型化为三种:未能履行履约相关的协助义务、未能在合理信赖的基础上行事、未能尽合理注意照顾自己的固有利益。在特定保护政策排斥与有过失规则的规范目的时,与有过失规则的适用应进行目的论限缩。在法律技术上体现为过错的否定,主要有两类情形,即受损方欠缺保护自身的能力、违约方相对于受损方更能避免损害的发生。在前者中,可以适当降低合理注意的标准,否定过错的成立;在后者中,考虑受损方有时依赖于相对方的知识经验,受损方与有过失成立应以相对方已尽相应的告知义务为前提。

The determination of fault in applying contributory negligence doctrine in contract law relies on the teleological interpretation.From the perspective of protecting the performance interest,reliance interest and inherent interest in contract law,contributory negligence doctrine has three purposes:urging parties to work together to achieve cooperation;guiding parties to act on a reasonable reliance basis;and protecting parties’reliance on self-protection from the other party.Furthermore,the fault of the doctrine can be categorized into three types:failing to perform the assistance related to performance,failing to act on a reasonable reliance basis,and failing to exercise reasonable attention to protect their inherent interests.In the case of special protection policies excluding the purpose of contributory negligence doctrine,the application of contributory negligence doctrine should be restricted by purpose.In the practical aspect,it is reflected in the denial of fault.There are two types of situations,in which the capacity of the parties to protect themselves is deficient and the party who breaches the contract is more likely to avoid the occurrence of damage.In the first case,the standard of reasonable attention can be reduced to negate the determination of fault;in the second case,considering that sometimes parties depend on the knowledge and experience of the other party,the determination of the fault should be preceded by the due notice of the other party.