締約過失與欺詐的關係再造－－以錯誤理論的功能介入為輔線

Reconstructing Relationship between Fault in Contracting and Fraud-- On the Auxiliary Line of Function Intervention of Mistake Theory

根據制度競合論，締約過失制度與欺詐制度之間存在評價矛盾，應通過承認“過失欺詐”予以解決。這一判斷及其解決方案，在我國有重新檢視之必要。對於欺詐撤銷權與基於締約過失的合同廢除，請求權競合說、欺詐規定優先說與折中方案均未能提供完善的解決之道，未從根本上消除評價矛盾。而作為因應之道的“過失欺詐”存在規範上的障礙，忽視了錯誤理論的適用性，尚欠充分的說服力。在解釋論的背景之下，關於重大誤解的規定可實現對“過失欺詐”的功能替代，以規制過失違反信息義務的行為。締約過失責任在我國應醇化為金錢賠償責任，從而實現與欺詐及重大誤解規定的功能對接。締約過失與欺詐的關係應為效果上的承接關係，以消解制度競合視角下的評價矛盾。

According to the theory of system concurrence, there is an evaluation contradiction between fault in contracting and fraud, which should be resolved by recognizing 'negligent fraud'. This judgment and its solution should be re-examined in our country. For the relationship between withdrawal on ground of fraud and repeal on ground of fault in contracting, the three theories, namely competing claims, priority of fraud provision and compromise proposal, fail to provide complete solution, so that evaluation contradiction has not be eliminated fundamentally. As a response, the way of 'negligent fraud' has obstacles on provision and neglects the applicability of the mistake theory, so it does not have enough persuasion. Under the background of interpretation theory, provision on significant misunderstanding can replace 'negligent fraud' functionally to regulate negligent breach of information obligation. In order to achieve functional docking with provisions on fraud and significant misunderstanding, liability for fault in contracting should be perfected to damages for money in China. Relationship between fault in contracting and fraud should be function undertaking on effect. So the evaluation contradiction in the perspective of system concurrence can be eliminated.