论物业服务企业的给付义务及其与第三人侵权之关系——陈书豪与南京武宁房地产开发有限公司、南京青和物业管理有限公司财产损害赔偿纠纷案评释

The Leistungspflichten of Property Service Enterprise and Its Relationship with Third Party's Infringement Act

物业服务合同中,在认定物业服务企业的债务内容时,应当根据缔约的背景环境,综合合同约定、交易习惯等诸多因素对当事人意思进行解释,进行具体化地判定,而非完全取决于合同性质的认定。物业服务企业应负的安全保障义务,既有法定依据也得到理论与实践的支持。物业服务企业的合同债务是方式之债,应重点考察其服务本身和履行过程来判定是否存在服务瑕疵。若该违约中介入了第三人的侵权行为,则应采"合同构成"之合同拘束力理论框架作为分析工具,考察"防止第三人侵权"是否落入债务人自愿承接的债务内容中,以决定债务人可否免责,方能尊重当事人意思自治及其风险配置。物业服务企业对小区公用区域负有防范第三人侵害业主的安全保障义务,故不得免责。合同法第121条应当限缩适用。

In property service contract,the content of contractual obligation should not be determined thoroughly by the nature of contract,but should rather be judged specifically by means of contractual interpretation which should be carried out on the basis of contractual background and take into account the contract terms,transaction practices and many other relevant factors. The security obligation of property service enterprise not only has statutory basis,but also is supported by theory exploration and judicial practice. The contractual obligation of property service enterprise is a kind of obligation de moyens,so the judgment of service defects should be focused on the process of performance of the contract. In case that the breach of contract is due to the intervening of third party's infringement act,we should take the theory of 'framework of contractual right'as an analytical tool,and inspect whether 'prevent the intervening of third party's infringement act' falls into the scope of the shuldner's voluntarily undertaken contractual obligation in order to determine whether or not he/she can be exempt from liability. Only in this way,can the private autonomy be respected. The property service enterprise should undertake the security obligation in the residential quarter's public area and prevent third party's infringement act,so it cannot be exempt from liability. Article 121 of Contract Law of People's Republic of China should be restricted in judicial application.