標的物受公法限制之買賣契約之效力、瑕疵擔保及債務不履行

Validity, Warranty and Non-Performance of Sale Contract in case the Object is restricted by Public Law

王麗鈞(Li-Chun Wang)

指導教授 ： 詹森林

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2018年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU201800556

摘要

關於買賣契約之標的物受有公法規範限制者，國內研究方向大多聚焦於違反政府公告之法令標準，例如房屋違反建築成規，當事人得請求救濟之權利及相關法律效果。
然而，對於標的物受有公法規範之限制，亦可能發生在買賣契約之標的物合於政府法令規範之狀況，例如，買賣之土地經政府以法令公告禁止建築或限制建築高度者，因該公法規範之存在，並不符合買受人之期待與締約之目的，此時，當事人亦有本於買賣契約循求救濟之管道。惟我國實務對此仍存在爭議性，且此議題事實上攸關該公法規範限制之風險應由哪一方當事人承擔的問題，並涉及買賣契約出賣人告知義務之範圍及買受人查證義務之爭議。
本文主要探究買賣契約於契約締結階段至契約履行階段，依公法上限制或禁止規範之存在時點，可能對於買賣契約效力之影響為研究核心，探討當事人有無主張瑕疵擔保或債務不履行之可能性與爭點，同時歸納我國實務對於此議題之見解以及相關爭議點。此外，並圍繞研究主題借鏡跨國買賣關係中之國際法上文件觀點，期能作為解決我國相關問題之參考。

關鍵字

公法規範 ； 告知義務 ； 查證義務 ； 瑕疵擔保 ； 債務不履行

並列摘要

With respect to the sale contract in case the object is restricted by public law, most domestic researches focus on violating norms and regulations announced by the government. For example, if a house sale contract is not conformity with the building norms whether the parties concerned shall claim compensation and related legal effects.
However, it may happen that the object of sale contract is in conformity with norms and regulations issued by the government. For example, in the transaction of real estate, the norms that are announced by the government to prohibit architecture or restrict the height of building do not meet the expectations or the purpose of the buyer while the sale contract concluding. At this moment, it shall be considered that the parties shall claim based on the sale contract. In fact, there are still controversies in domestic judgements. Actually, this issue is regarding the allocation of risk between seller and buyer caused by the restrictions of the norms of public law. It also involves the scope of disclosure obligations of the seller and the investigation obligations of the buyer.
This paper mainly study during the stage from contract concluding until contract performance, the existence time of the restriction or prohibition norms of public law may take effect on the validity of sale contracts, and discusses possibilities and disputes on whether the parties concerned have the responsibility for warranty of defect or non-performance. Furthermore, focusing on the study theme and drawing views from international principles on transnational business relationship, it is expected to be a reference for resolving related problems in our country.

並列關鍵字

norms of public law ； disclosure obligation ； investigation obligation ； warranty of defect ； non-performance

參考文獻

王澤鑑(2016)。〈債務不履行法的變遷—違約責任與損害賠償(上)〉，《法令月刊》，67卷9期，頁1-24。

向明恩(2011)。〈對我國民法第245條之1之反省與檢討〉，《臺北大學法學論叢》，79期，頁145-205。

陳自強(2012)。〈主給付義務以外其他義務違反之契約解除〉，《東吳法律學報》，23卷4期，頁43-88。

陳自強(2011)。〈契約過失責任與無過失責任之間—歸責事由之比較法觀察〉，《政大法學評論》，123期，頁1-50。

陳自強(2012)。〈契約責任之歸責事由〉，《臺大法學論叢》，41卷1期，頁71-132。