論契約成立生效後之締約上過失責任以不實表述之責任為中心

Culpa in Contrahendo Liability After the Formation of Contract: Focusing on Misrepresentation

依民法第245條之1第1項第1款規定，締約人僅就「締約有重要關係之事項」負有說明義務，且其違法行為必須以對方曾經詢問，加害人惡意隱匿或為不實之說明為構成要件。又本條規定具有「契約未成立」之要件，對於締約人違反說明義務，致訂立不利他人契約之案件，是否適用，顯有疑問。對於締約人不實陳述，致訂立不利於他方之契約，德國法除錯誤法則及詐欺法則之外，就過失不實表述之案件，認為加害人應負締約上過失責任。英國法就詐欺與不實表述採取統一規範，被害人得主張撤銷契約，並請求賠償損害。本文藉由比較法方式，檢討我國民法第245條之1第1項第1款之規定。本文指出，依本條款之規定，締約人之說明義務，限於「經他方詢問」之事項，並未承認締約人之一般性的說明義務。又「就訂約有重要關係之事項」，應參酌各國法制，就個案認定之。為完善保護被害人之權益，避免法律規範漏洞，本條款規定，不應限於「契約未成立」，始得適用，而應擴張解釋，涵蓋當事人違反說明義務致訂立不利他人契約之案件。至於契約成立後，所成立之締約上過失責任，是否僅構成違約責任，本文認為締約上過失責任與不完全給付責任，規範對象不同，二者併存而具有各自功能。

The culpa in contrahendo governed by Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 1, Article 245-1 of Taiwan Civil Code stipulates that a negotiator is liable for deliberately not disclosing information or giving incorrect information where the information is significant and the informer is requested to disclose such information. Although this article provides a negotiator with a duty of information, it is restricted to be applied to the negotiation that does not lead to conclusion of a contract in the end. As such, it is disputable as to whether the culpa in contrahendo stipulated in this article is applicable to the case where a contract has been entered even if a negotiator breached its duty of information. The culpa in contrahendo is applicable to the case where a contract was concluded with negligent misrepresentation under German law, as long as such contract is harmful to the non-informed party, who is entitled to claim reliance damages. In English law, the Misrepresentation Act is enacted to govern fraud, negligent and non-negligent misrepresentation, and empowers the victim to rescind a contract and to claim damages. This paper is aimed to examine Subparagraph 1, Paragraph 1, Article 245-1 of Taiwan Civil Code in terms of its legislative purpose and its application. It is indicated herein that this article does not recognize a general principle of duty of information since only those information requested by the victim is subject to disclosure. Although this article restricts its application to the case where a contract is not concluded in the end, it should have been interpreted to govern the case where a contract is concluded with negligent misrepresentation. It is arguable that culpa in contrahendo should not be eliminated by the liability of non-performance in some cases.