权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Comprehensive research on tort liability between contract parties

合同当事人侵权责任综合研究

基本信息

批准号：
09620033
负责人：
MATSUOKA Hisakazu
金额：
$ 1.66万
依托单位：
Kobe University
依托单位国家：
日本
项目类别：
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
财政年份：
1997
资助国家：
日本
起止时间：
1997 至 1998
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-09620033/
关键词：
contract the role of tort law commodity futures trading financial trading multilevel marketing system 金銭騙取

项目摘要

In a judicial precedent about the cases of modern trading like commodity futures trading or financial trading, we can find the resolution by tort law and the tort liability beside the solution by contract law. Also for the case of the multilevel marketing system, such view is widely accepted. A contract partner, in such cases, can claim for damages by tort law against another partner. However it is not clear, which relation between tort and contract law we should find. "What kind of role can and should tort law play in the cases between contract partners" is the theme of our collaborated research.With our works we have arrived a conclusion, resolution by tort law has many problems to solve. In other words, we should use more positively contract law or law of restitution as means to the better solution at the characteristic and the concrete situation of each contract. First, in the commodity futures trading cases, we can regard the concrete inducement to such a trading and the breach of each directions as the breach of basic trading contract. An appropriate solution for many cases can be attained not by tort law, but by contract law. Second, in the cases of multilevel marketing system, we find the' core of the issue in its character against "public order". In such cases, it is not easy to regard a contract partner as a victim in the light of tort law. We, however, can and should declare such a trading system invalid because of its violation of public order. Then we can find a much more suitable resolution in the law of restitution. Third, about the cases of financial trading as risk trading, the contents of obligation of explanation, the negligence of which could lead to the tort liability, is not clear, In order to draw an unquestionable conclusion, the legislation is necessary.

在商品期货交易、金融交易等现代交易案件的司法判例中，除了合同法解决外，我们还可以找到侵权法解决和侵权责任解决的途径。同样对于多层次营销体系，这种观点也被广泛接受。在这种情况下，合同合伙人可以通过侵权法对另一合伙人要求损害赔偿。然而，侵权行为法与合同法之间的关系究竟是怎样的，我们并不是很清楚。“侵权法在合同当事人之间的案件中可以发挥什么样的作用？应该发挥什么样的作用？”是我们合作研究的主题。通过我们的工作得出结论，侵权法解决存在许多问题需要解决。换句话说，我们应该根据每个合同的特点和具体情况，更积极地运用合同法或赔偿法作为手段来更好地解决这一问题。首先，在商品期货交易案件中，我们可以将导致商品期货交易的具体诱因以及各个方向的违反视为基本交易合约的违反。对于许多案件，恰当的解决办法不是侵权法，而是合同法。其次，在多层次营销的案例中，我们发现问题的核心在于其反“公共秩序”的性质。在这种情况下，从侵权法的角度来看，不容易将合同伙伴视为受害者。然而，我们可以而且应该宣布这种贸易制度是无效的，因为它违反了公共秩序。这样，我们就可以在赔偿法中找到更为合适的解决办法。第三，关于金融交易作为风险交易的案例，解释义务的内容不明确，其疏忽可能导致侵权责任，为了得出一个不容置疑的结论，有必要立法。