【作者】 王丽丽；

【导师】 柴振国；

【作者基本信息】 河北经贸大学 ， 法律（法学）（专业学位）， 2023， 硕士

【摘要】 预约制度被引进我国后,针对预约合同引起的纠纷就频频发生,但纵观我国法律体系,直至2020年《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称《民法典》)颁布,才将预约合同从法律层面进行规制,然而依然未能解决预约合同在适用过程中已经凸显出来的相关问题。故本文以《民法典》第495条为基础,结合实践中的典型案例,分析违反预约合同后责任承担方面存在的问题,并提出相应的完善策略,以期能够为司法审判工作带来全新的视角和思路。本文除引言和结语外,主要分为以下四个部分:第一部分为预约合同违约责任的一般问题。在研究预约合同违约责任之前,有必要先明确何为预约合同,对预约合同界定的理解与把握,是研究预约合同责任承担问题的根本。其次,介绍了预约合同违约责任的概念,并将其与本约合同违约责任和缔约过失责任进行了区分。最后,阐述了交易成本理论与交易成熟度理论为预约合同违约责任认定提供的理论指导作用。第二部分阐述了预约合同违约责任的适用。我国《民法典》为保持合同编的体系开放性,未对预约合同的责任承担方式作出详细规定,只能结合《民法典》合同编通则部分所规定的继续履行、赔偿损失等违约责任形式来理解和适用。但是,预约合同因其特殊性,一般合同中违约责任的承担形式对预约合同能否当然适用,至今仍有争论。因此,这一部分着重阐明学术界对继续履行以及损害赔偿范围的理论争议。此外,本文还对定金责任与违约金责任形式进行了详细的剖析,主要介绍了定金是否能够与继续履行责任以及损害赔偿责任同时适用,以及违约金是否能够与定金同时适用的问题。第三部分即预约合同违约责任的适用现状及存在的问题。脱离司法实践,泛泛谈预约合同的违约责任,就难以“对症下药”。本文通过对有关预约合同违约责任纠纷案件的司法数据及典型案例进行整合分析,归纳出预约合同违约责任规则在适用中存在的问题,一是对于违反预约合同能否适用继续履行责任,目前尚无统一认识;二是在适用损害赔偿责任时,对于其范围的确定上不同法官也有不同意见,有的支持赔偿信赖利益,有的支持赔偿履行利益,“同案不同判”的现象普遍存在。第四部分结合第三部分总结的问题,提出对应的完善建议。法院在违约责任的裁判中,存在着不一致的审判路径,但作出判决的依据终归是“预约合同”本身。因此,本文提出以当事人内心真意及合同的完备程度为标准,将预约合同内部进行类型化分类,着重探讨在类型化视域下如何认定预约合同的违约责任,明确了继续履行责任的类型化适用,构建了类型化的损害赔偿责任范围,细化了赔偿范围的计算方式。此外,还提出了在违约责任与缔约过失责任竞合时的处理方式,以最大限度地维护交易双方的利益均衡,为法官裁判亮明“灯塔”。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since the introduction of the appointment system in China,disputes arising from appointment contracts have been frequent.However,the appointment contracts were not regulated from the legal level until the promulgation of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code")in 2020,but it still failed to solve the problems related to the appointment contracts that have been highlighted in the process of application.Therefore,based on Article 495 of the Civil Code,this paper analyzes the problems of liability for breach of contract of appointment in conjunction with typical cases in practice,and proposes corresponding improvement strategies in order to bring a new perspective and ideas to the judicial trial.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this paper is divided into the following four parts.The first part is divided into the general issue of liability for breach of contract of appointment.Before studying the liability for breach of contract of appointment,it is necessary to clarify what is a contract of appointment,and the understanding and grasp of the definition of contract of appointment is fundamental to the study of the issue of liability for contract of appointment.Secondly,the concept of liability for breach of contract of appointment is introduced,and it is distinguished from liability for breach of contract of this contract and liability for contractual negligence.Finally,the theoretical guidance provided by transaction cost theory and transaction maturity theory for the determination of liability for breach of contract in reservation contracts is explained.The second part elaborates the application of the liability for breach of contract of appointment.In order to maintain the openness of the system of the Civil Code,no detailed provisions are made on the liability of the contract of appointment,which can only be understood and applied in conjunction with the forms of liability for breach of contract such as continuation of performance and compensation for damages as stipulated in the General Provisions of the Civil Code.However,due to the special nature of the contract of appointment,it is still debated whether the forms of liability for breach of contract in general contracts can be applied to the contract of appointment as a matter of course.Therefore,this part focuses on elucidating the theoretical controversies in academic circles about the continuing performance and the scope of damages.In addition,this article also provides a detailed analysis of the form of liability for deposits and liquidated damages,mainly introducing whether deposits can be applied simultaneously with continuing performance and damages,and whether liquidated damages can be applied simultaneously with deposits.The third part is the current situation and problems of the application of liability for breach of contract in reservation contracts.It is difficult to "prescribe the right remedy" if we talk about the liability for breach of contract in a general way in isolation from judicial practice.This article integrates and analyzes the judicial data and typical cases on the disputes of breach of contract of appointment,and summarizes the problems in the application of the rules of breach of contract of appointment.Some of them support compensation for reliance and some support compensation for performance,and the phenomenon of "different judgments in the same case" is common.The fourth part of this article proposes suggestions for improvement in light of the problems summarized in the third part.In the adjudication of liability for breach of contract,there are inconsistent adjudication paths,but the basis of the decision is ultimately the "contract of appointment" itself.Therefore,this paper proposes to classify the contract of appointment into types based on the true intention of the parties and the completeness of the contract,and focuses on how to determine the liability for breach of contract under the typology,clarifies the application of the typology of the liability for continued performance,constructs a typology of the scope of liability for damages,and refines the calculation of the scope of compensation.In addition,it also proposes the way to deal with the competing liability for breach of contract and contractual negligence,in order to maintain the balance of interests of both parties to the transaction to the greatest extent possible,and to provide a "beacon" for judges to make decisions.更多还原