受益第三人在合同中的权利

【作者】 陈任；

【导师】 夏雅丽；

【作者基本信息】 西北大学 ， 国际经济法， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 在现代合同立法和理论研究中，有两个相互对立且矛盾的制度。一个是合同的相对性原则，一个是受益第三人制度。合同的相对性原则起源很早，在很多国家的立法中都有明确的规定，在司法实践中也得到普遍适用。而受益第三人制度则是后来随着社会经济的发展而兴起的。受益第三人问题在合同领域产生，随着第三人的地位随着实践发展的需要，逐渐得到合同法的关注和承认。西方国家早期对受益第三人地位确认的立法制度集中体现在信托，海商和保险领域。此后，随着经济的发展，越来越多的合同牵涉到第三人的利益和权利问题。从而在西方的理论界掀起了挑战相对性原则，建立普遍适用的受益第三人制度的争论。尤其在英国，因保守的相对性理论和对价制度的限制，对是否应当在合同法上承认第三人在合同中权利的争论已达上百年。最后终于在1999年通过第三人权利法案，标志着西方主要国家对受益第三人在合同法上的权利的普遍承认。 我国1999亦颁布了新的合同法。但是，新合同法坚持相对性原则中关于“责任相对性”的要求，在承认第三人有权接受债务人履行的同时，又规定了第三人没有权利在债务人违约的情况下以自己的名义提起诉讼。而西方国家的理论研究和大量的判例已经证明，通过债权人的诉讼来解决受益第三人的损失问题在理论上无法自圆其说，在实践中会遇到很多困难。解决问题的有效途径是在一定的条件下承认受益第三人可以自己的名义向违约的债务人提起诉讼。 我国合同法的基本原则是当事人意思自治原则和诚实信用原则。合同法旨在通过保护当事人在合同中的意思表示来保证当事人在公平的交易中获得各自的期待利益。建立受益第三人制度恰好是为了体现上述基本原则和基本宗旨。因此，具体制度的内容将取决于合同当事人真实意图，包括第三人是否可以获得合同上的权利，应在什么条件下获得权利。从这个意义上说，我国的受益第三人的制度在本质上并不与相对性原则冲突，两者都是为了更好的实现合同法的宗旨和当事人意思自治原则。更多还原

【Abstract】 There are two different doctrines in conflict in the modern contract legislation and legal study - one is privity doctrine and another is the theory on third party beneficiary. The privity doctrine has a long history. It is not only expressly recognized in many counties’ statutes but also applied generally in judicial practice. In contrast, third party beneficiaries theory became more and more important subsequently with the development of social economy. It attracted much attention and got recognition in the area of contract law as necessary in practice. In the western world, protection of the third party beneficiary by law is particularly reflected in the trust law, admiralty law and insurance law. But obvious this is not enough with the growth of the number of affairs concerning third parties’ interests and rights who are involved in various contracts. A great debate on whether it is necessary to rebuild new third party theories spread in both Common Law and Civil Law. Especially in England, the debate lasted more than a hundred year due to its stubborn privity rule and consideration doctrine. At last the 1999 Contract Act was promulgated and shows common recognition of third party’s rights in contract law in western world.Chinese new Contract Law was put into practice in 1999. In order to stand to the privity doctrine, the Contract Law recognizes that a third party has a right to receive the benefit agreed in the contract, but denies his right to enforce the contract on the other hand. Much legal study and cases have showed that it is difficult to deal with the third parry’s loss by way of the creditor’s claim both in theory and in practice. The only workable solution is empower a third party beneficiary to bring an action on the contract in his own name.The basic principles in Chinese Contract Law are the principle of autonomy of the will of parties and the Principle of Goodwill. The Contract Law aims to realize contracting parties’ expectation interests by effectuate the parties’ intentions in the contract. The establishment of third party beneficiary rule just aims to embody the principles and purposes above. Therefore, the specific content of the third party beneficiary rule depends on the contracting parties’ true intentions. In this regard, the future third party beneficiary rule does not conflict with the privity doctrine because both are served to realize our Contract Law’s purposes and the principle of autonomy of the will of parties in nature.更多还原