摘要
日本债权法基本理论正在经历一场意义深远的革命:从传统的潘德克吞模式下的债权.债务构成走向契约构成,其结果,造成了新理论在履行请求权的定位、债务不履行的归责事由、损害数额的确定基准、解除的要件、风险负担制度的价值以及情事变更制度的理解等债权法重大问题上都与传统理论立场根本对立。造成这种分歧的根本原因在于新旧理论对契约中他律要素的不同定位:传统理论将他律要素定位于契约内容之外,主张契约是基于当事人自由意思的合意;而新理论则将他律要素也纳入到契约内容中来,认为契约是制度之下的自由意思的合意。
The theoretical basis of Japan' s Law of Obligation is currently undergoing a significant shift:a move from an emphasis on the traditional Pandects model of the constitution of the Law of Obligation towards an emphasis on the constitution of the contract. The result of this change has led to the creation of a new theory regarding the positioning of the right to place a claim, reasons for the nonperformance of an obligation, the methods for calculation of damages, elements of termination, the weight of value placed on the system established for the sharing of risks, the understanding of what constitutes a change of events and so on. All of these issues relating to the Law of Obligation under the new theory conflict with the traditional model. The reason for the creation of this chasm is that the old and new theories position of the heteronymous elements differently. The traditional theory excludes heteronymous elements from the content of the contract and states that the contract is based on the parties voluntarily reaching an agreement whereas the new theory includes fiduciary duties and holds the view that contract is an agreement reached voluntarily under the system as a whole.
出处
《南京大学学报（哲学．人文科学．社会科学）》
CSSCI
北大核心
2010年第2期124-133,共10页
Journal of Nanjing University(Philosophy,Humanities and Social Sciences)
