論先契約之責任--以建構我國法制為中心--

Precontractual Liability--Focusing on the Establishment of Civil Law System

游明慧(Ming-Hui Yu)

指導教授 ： 陳忠五

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/法律學研究所/碩士(2008年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2008.01333

摘要

當事人於締約接觸、交涉之先契約階段因一方之行為致他方受有損害時，責任應如何歸咎，本若得以訴諸於原本已存在之民事責任類型，便不成為問題。然而，礙於德國侵權責任法規範之保護客體過於狹隘，且此階段與締約後之契約責任畢竟不同，進而發展為法定債之關係下獨立的一種責任類型。對此，我國法雖於法律規定或學說理論多承襲自德國法，但未必即意味須全盤移植該國發展下的規範模式，至少就先契約責任之概念內涵、屬性等仍須釐清。並且，更重要的便是，如何針對我國現行有關先契約責任之法律規定予以解讀、整理，以建構出適於規範締約磋商階段的責任法制。首應確立何者為我國先契約責任法制之一般規定、與涉及的個別規定有何，以及適用範圍或要件限制上得否充分發揮規範功能。

本文撰寫上，就研究方法係採循比較法上之觀察、以及我國實務判決的搜尋閱讀以突顯先契約責任規定具體適用之情形。為建構我國先契約責任之法制，便以先契約責任之基礎、定位、成立及範圍四項指標，透過整理德國法、歐洲契約法原則、日本法、英國法及美國法等法系的規範模式；對照之下，以得出值得我國法借鏡或參考的解決方式。回歸我國法而言，關於先契約責任之定性，不論是第245條之1的立法理由或是承襲德國法發展趨勢的通說，皆將先契約責任定位為獨立於契約與侵權責任以外的法定債之關係。

然而，透過比較法研究對於「先契約責任」之內涵和屬性重新理解，本文脈絡之下係指「於契約有效成立前之階段，當事人一方之行為有違誠信原則而致他方受有損害，因而對其負有責任」，不同於德國耶林所提「締約上過失」之責任意涵，非以過失原則為唯一可能的歸責原理。責任屬性上，亦較類似於英美法系的定性模式，即不具有獨立的責任內涵；甚至，本文認為屬於侵權責任下的一種次類型。

藉由上述概念特徵審視相關規定可得，我國先契約責任法制下的個別規定應有第91條錯誤撤銷表意人之賠償責任、第110條無權代理人之賠償責任、第165條撤回懸賞廣告人之賠償責任、第247條標的自始客觀不能之賠償責任等類型，一般規定則確立為第245條之1。上揭規定之間既屬個別規定與一般規定之適用關係，就前者條文未予規定者便有比照後者解釋之可能，始能維持先契約責任體系一貫之秩序。

就責任成立而論，客觀上除了個別規定所舉之類型外，一般規定第245條之1條文亦例示告知說明義務、保密義務等，但因條文設有「經他方詢問」或「經他方明示」等要件，以致於適用可能性大幅降低、多轉以概括誠信義務為據。又，主觀上採無過失責任之個別規定於被害人甚為有利，但觀諸第245條之1卻要求行為人須達惡意、故意或重大過失之歸責程度，觀諸明文化之德國2002年新制定之民法第311條第2項或歐洲契約法原則第2:301條皆未有此限制實不合於定位為一般規定所應有的規範設計。此外，責任範圍一概限定為信賴利益損害賠償，不僅漏未規範如歐洲契約法原則第2:302條對於保密義務特別賦予返還利益之法律效果，亦不及美國法實務上因應個案而定的操作模式較具彈性，彰顯出我國法下無法因應義務類型而為調整的規範缺陷。

因而，本文便嘗試從立法論及解釋論兩大途徑，就先契約責任一般規定第245條之1及上揭個別規定於責任成立、責任範圍、消滅時效及舉證責任等問題，提出些許淺見。立法論上，既不應區分嗣後契約是否有效成立而有所不同，第245條之1中「契約未成立時」之要件自應刪除；主觀要件部分則無須限於故意或惡意，而應回歸一般過失原則，以免締約階段「利益」受侵害之被害人不論循侵權責任或先契約責任皆求償受拒。客觀要件部分請求權人亦不應僅因自身過失便排除他方締約當事人成立先契約責任之可能，仍應置於責任範圍階段作為減輕加害行為人責任之衡量因素，即第91條、第247條及第245條之1等應刪除請求權人須為無過失之要件、一律適用與有過失之規定。就消滅時效而言，未有特殊規範計畫的個別規定皆應回歸第245條之1一般性規定，適用二年的時效期間。針對舉證責任及利用締約輔助人時如何歸責，本應訴諸前揭就先契約責任之定性，依循侵權責任法理定之，惟解釋論上前者礙於現行第245條之1主觀要件之嚴苛，權衡之下則暫依契約法處理。

並且，針對條文中所規定「準備或商議階段」之解釋，應無須強調此要件的篩選功能，避免動輒以當事人未達特殊信賴關係為由，便直接否決進一步檢驗是否符合各款義務的可能。由於，實務上法院之判決尚未能廣泛體認此點，修法前仍多受限於條文之文字以致無法充分發揮系爭規定之規範功能。從而，本文極力建議的是，法官應藉由第245條之1第三款誠信義務的靈活適用，彌補前二款規定過苛之缺陷，而非僅以一方未符「準備或磋商階段」之要件便輕易捨棄在個別案例中類型化該款操作標準等論證之機會。

文末，筆者更深切地體認到參考並引進外國法制之同時，實不能僅停留於前階段的引入，更須一倂將我國法現有規定及適用狀況納入考量，並調整為真正適合我國法實情下操作的法規範。甚且，法律「制定」和「適用」之重責大任既係由立法者和司法者所擔當；就前者而言，應盡可能使法律合乎社會之需求、不時予以適度調整修正，以維持法律規範的健全運作。至於後者，所肩負者係於個案中作出攸關人民權益的終局裁判；因而，對於法律條文規定之闕漏，司法者更應細膩地體察法條背後原欲發揮的規範精神、積極地運作條文的彈性空間。

關鍵字

先契約責任 ； 誠實信用原則 ； 法定債之關係 ； 侵權性格 ； 個別規定 ； 一般規定 ； 不法性

並列摘要

Freedom of contract is composed of two notions, one is that the parties are free to create a binding contract reflecting their free will; another is that the parties are free from obligations so long as binding contract has not been concluded. According to the principle of good faith; however, even in negotiating a party is obligated not to harm the economic interests of the other party. In other words, the victim has the right to claim damages based on his reliance. Resulting from the shortcomings of German tort law, especially for pure economic loss, we have trouble in dealing with those damages occurring in the negotiating process.

As far as German Law is concerned, neither contract nor tort reasoning is available to support precontractual liability, and inevitably lead to the creation of an obligation imposed by the law. Notwithstanding the tendency, we should not accept the whole system and approach completely without thinking it over on our own. Above all, we must set up our law system by deciding individual and general provisions of precontractual liability, also make sure that the provisions would bring into full play.

In this study, there are two kinds of ways in order to specifically observe the provisions of precontractual liability. One of that is to compare with other civil law systems, such as German, Principles of European Contract Law(PECL), Japan, England and America. The other method is to search and remark those judicial judgments relating to precontractual liability, especially focusing on the provisions the court usually uses and how it uses. Most important of all, the court’s attitude toward the law can reflect the weakness and strictness of our precontractual liability law system.

Differing from the fathers’ view of provision §245-1and the opinion of the majority of German scholars, this study tries hard to distinguish between the concept of precontractual liability between the theory of culpa in contrahendo, which Rudolf v. Jhering has set up in 1861. In this study, precontractual liability means that before the contract is formally concluded, if the party’s conduct breach the duty of good faith and induce the other party’s loss, the party is responsible to compensate for the loss. Accordingly, precontractual liability is no longer limited to a fault-based liability. Besides, the nature of the liability is non-independent but tortious. That is to say, precontractual obligation strengthens as negotiation proceeds, however, it is still one of the obligation in tort, not an extra obligation imposed by law.

Referring to the law system, there are two sorts of provisions in our
precontractual liability system. In this study, we treat individual provisions as §91, §110, §165, §247 and general one as §245-1. Nevertheless, those provisions don’t function well as we expect, the main problem is concerned with the requirements of §245-1. Comparing to the German civil Law §311Ⅱand PECL§2:301, both subjective and objective requirements of §245-1 are too strict to use in cases. Besides, the remedies is not always restricted to reliance damage, particularly the duty to keep other negotiating party’s secrets. For example, there is another remedy as taking back the interests in PECL§2:302. Also, the remedies as to precontractual liability in American law are case by case, even the expectation damage.

In regard to the shortcomings of §245-1, the court should be more active in making use of the duty of good faith, as the third article of §245-1. This study manages to find a way out of solving those defects by law reforming and explaining. As to the former, it should go back to the fault-based liability in general provision §245-1, but also get rid of dispensable requirements to make the general clause more flexible. Instead of the negligence rule, the illegality plays an important role in deciding the duty. In accordance with general provision §245-1, extinctive prescription of individual provisions are two years only, not fifteen years.

As for the latter, the main question is how to deal with the burden of proof and the duty about using third party to negotiate. In principle, the approach is following the rule of tort due to its nature. At the end, this study contrives to indicate the great relevance between enacting the law and explaining the law. On the one hand, the court as a law-explainer, should make the law’s meaning as clear as possible. On the other hand, even the court has the power to urge the law-maker to reform. According to circumstances in our law system, precontractual liability is the typical instance.

並列關鍵字

precontractual liability ； the principle of good faith ； an obligation imposedby law ； nature of tort ； individual provision ； general provision ； illegality

參考文獻

王澤鑑，「法律思維與民法實例 請求權基礎理論體系」，2001年7月5刷

林慧貞，「附隨義務與民事責任之發展」，臺灣大學法律學研究所博士論文，2005年7月

汪信君，保險法告知義務之義務性質與不真正義務，台大法學論叢第36卷1期，2007年3月，頁1~54

林誠二，消滅時效期間起算點之合理性判斷-簡評最高法院九五年度台上字第一六○七號判決-，臺灣本土法學雜誌第94期，2007年5月，頁302~305

張有捷，論先契約通知義務之義務人，法令月刊第57卷1期，p26~36