<p>Hyrköp av fast egendom är en relativt ny företeelse på fastighetsmarknaden. Hyrköpet innebär att en hyresgäst träffar hyresavtal med ett bostadsbolag som erbjuder en hyrköpsmodell och avtalet kombineras med en optionsrätt. Optionsrätten innebär att hyresgästen, ”hyrköparen”, ges en rätt att inom optionstiden förvärva fastigheten i fråga.</p><p>Sedan länge har fastighetsrätten i Sverige varit kringgärdat av formkrav. Formkravets primära syfte har varit att inte belasta köpare och säljare mer än nödvändigt men tvinga parterna till att reglera vissa minimikrav för att ett giltigt fastighetsförvärv skall komma till stånd. Bakgrunden till reglerna utgörs av att det från allmän synpunkt är angeläget att avtal inte förbinds med villkor, som medför osäkerhet och oreda i äganderättsförhållanden.</p><p>Det fastighetsrättsliga formkravet har medfört att utfästelser om framtida försäljning av fast egendom sedan länge varit ogiltiga i svensk rätt. Vad gäller hyrköpet innebär den optionsrätt som avtalas i samband med hyresavtalet att bostadsbolaget gör en utfästelse om framtida försäljning. Eftersom sådana utfästelser generellt anses ogiltiga utreder denna uppsats rättsverkningarna av att sådan utfästelse de facto avtalas vid ett hyrköp. Författaren ställer sig sålunda frågan huruvida hyrköpet kan ges någon rättslig relevans, om inte inom fastighetsrätten men inom andra rättsområden som aktualiseras av hyrköpet? Bakgrunden till att författaren velat utredda nämnda frågeställning utgörs av att hyrköpet tillsynes ställer förfördelad part vid en tvist utan tillämpliga regelverk för utrönandet av en specifik rättsverkan. Författaren har sålunda velat utreda gällande rätt för hyrköpet utifrån ett ”tvisteperspektiv” för att påvisa den reella situation avtalsparterna står inför vid ett hyrköp.</p><p>En empiri har genomförts för att låta bostadsbolag som erbjuder hyrköp belysa de anledningar till att hyrköpsmodeller lanseras och hur lanseringen till dags dato fungerat.</p><p>Författarens omfattande rättsutredning av fastighetsrätt, optionsrätt, avtalsrätt och skadeståndsrätt har tillsammans med empirin lett fram till författarens slutsatser kring hyrköpet. Författaren anser att det krävs en översyn av gällande fastighetsrätt från lagstiftarens sida. I avvaktan på lagstiftarens respons bör vidare fastighetsbolag och privatpersoner, i framtiden avstå ifrån att tillämpa modellen då hyrköpet rättsligt utgör ett i hög grad osäkert fastighetsförvärv.</p>

Univ., Diss.--St.Gallen, 2002.

The times when closing of the contract was as simple as making an offer and receiving its acceptance are long over now. A variuosly long period preceeds an establishment of a contractual relationship. During such period, when a contract is being formed, the parties exchange their requests or essential information and negotiate the content of the contract. The longer this pre-contractual negotiation lasts, the more time, money or other means parties invest in good faith that they shall be compensated once the contract is concluded. In case the closing of the contract is not going to occur, because of a party's unfair dealings, the party in harm shall be entitled to engage liability of the other contractor. In these circumstances, the party in harm shall base its claim on a pre-contractual liability, also referred to as culpa in contrahendo. Apart from determining the pre-contractual obligations and liability for their breach in general fashion, the subject matter of this thesis is mainly an effective comparison of Czech and French relevant legal regulation. Since the legislation does not currently regulate the issue of pre-contractual liability, this thesis is focused primarily on the case law issued by courts from both states. In particular, the thesis analyzes the case law of the Czech Supreme...

OF DIPLOMA THESIS THE THEORETICAL CONCEPTION OF PRE-CONTRACTUAL AND CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY Author: René Cienciala Supervisor: doc. JUDr. Karel Beran, Ph.D. Department: Department of Legal Theory and Legal Doctrines The purpose of my thesis was to analyse theoretical aspects of precontractual and contractual liability under Czech law. I particularly focused on precontractual liability (also known as culpa in contrahendo) due to its unclear and unresolved theoretical conception among Czech jurisprudence. The thesis consists of eleven chapters including one annex. After short introduction, I briefly analysed the meaning of a general term legal responsibility/ liability in the second chapter, and a historical background including the original Jhering's conception of culpa in contrahendo in the third part of the thesis. The fourth chapter is devoted to defining the scope of precontractual liability and specific precontractual duties and/or obligations during a contract negotiation under both current and revised civil law. I comprehensively analysed underlying principles of a concept of precontractual liability, its general nature and a nature of precontractual relationship in the fifth part of the thesis. I also tried to provide theoretical description and definition of the conception of culpa in...

我國政府採購法第85條第3項規定，針對招標申訴審議判斷指明機關違反法令時，廠商得請求償付其準備投標、異議，申訴之必要費用，該請求權係根據「政府採購協定」所定。但由於政府採購法及相關法規均未規定該條項所定之請求權之法律定性為何，以及何謂必要費用等，而本法主管機關亦不做解釋，加上備標費用證明不易，使法院見解只能趨於保守，並產生許多爭議。 目前國內探討本條項規定之文獻數量極少，相關判決亦不多，因此筆者認為，除了從我國學說及實務見解出發之外，本條項既根據政府採購協定而訂定，則其他協定締約國法院對相似案例之見解，應亦可供我國法院參考。因此本文選擇同為政府採購協定締約國，且政府採購金額於世界名列前茅的美國、歐盟，以及英國作為選擇比較研究之對象，並採取實務判決見解分析、文獻研究，以及比較研究之研究方法。 第一章為序論，說明本研究之動機、目的、範圍以及方法。第二、三、四、五章則分別討論我國、美國、歐盟，以及英國之公共採購相關法規，並分析各國司法實務審理參與政府採購之廠商主張採購機關違反採購法規致其未得標，而請求投標、備標及申訴異議等費用，甚至請求其他賠償時，所可能肯認之請求權基礎、應否賠償之判斷標準、應得賠償之範圍，以及得賠償金額之審酌標準，並於各章提出各國較具代表性之具體案例，以了解各判斷標準之實際操作。第六章則參酌各國實務見解及判決，與我國採購法相關法條及實務見解加以分析比較，以提出筆者認為值得參考的審查標準，並提出修法建議，以為本文結論。 筆者於研究後認為，在程序部份，應放寬政府採購法第75條可提起異議申訴之當事人適格認定，並將同法第85條第1項明定為：「審議判斷或法院確定判決指明原採購行為違反法令者，招標機關應另為適法之處置。」而使第3項所稱之「第一項情形」包含司法判決確定時。關於實體部份，筆者認為政府採購法第85條第3項所規定之請求權似乎可定義為行政法上債務關係之締約過失賠償請求權，而建議將此條項修改為：「第一項情形，廠商得向招標機關請求賠償其準備投標、異議及申訴所支出之合理費用。」以釐清此請求權應屬廣義之國家對人民之賠償，並將賠償範圍由「必要」改為「合理」，以免實務見解過度限縮。此外，筆者並認為，此請求權為違反已經存在之債務關係義務而生之責任，與國家賠償法之賠償係不法行為所生之侵權賠償責任性質應屬不同而可能併存。因此，廠商若因機關違法而受有其他損害，並符合國家賠償法所定之要件，似乎亦可循國家賠償法請求賠償。 / In accordance with Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan, an unsuccessful tenderer of public procurement is entitled to recover the “necessary” costs he has incurred in his bid/proposal preparation and protest/complaint process if he has challenged the procuring agency’s relevant decision in time and the decision has been declared to be in breach of statutes and regulations by the review authority, the Public Construction Commission. This article is legislated according to the principle laid down by the Government Procurement Agreement that stipulates challenge procedures reviewing procuring agency’s decision shall provide compensation for the loss or damage suffered by the complaining tenderer. However, there have been a lot of disputes concerning the legal status of the basis of action stipulated in this article and the exact extent of the compensable costs since they have never been defined clearly by any statute or explained by the authority. Along with the difficulties in proving the relevancy and “necessity” of the expenses and costs, these disputes have driven the Administrative Court to take a very restrictive view in deciding the recoverable costs which in many cases may not be appropriate remedies for the complaining tenderers. With very limited literature focusing on the disputes arising from this article and a very small number of judgments of such cases in Taiwan, I attempt to explore the opinions expressed not only by Taiwan’s court and scholars but also by the courts of the other countries that are also parties to the GPA and have similar articles in their statutory law in order to offer a comparative perspective that will help resolving the differences concerning the interpretation of this article. Besides Taiwan, I have chosen to examine the judicial review of such cases in the USA, the UK and the EU since their public procurement budgets are on the top list of the world and they are all members of the GPA. The first chapter states the purpose, the extent and the method of this study. The second, third, fourth and fifth chapters respectively discuss the main public procurement regulations and analyze the judicial review standards concerning the basis of actions, the possible remedies and the extent of damages allowed in Taiwan, the USA, the EU and the UK (including the judicial system of England, Wales and the North Ireland and the judicial system of Scotland). In the final chapter, I try to offer a comparative view and to suggest possible changes to the relevant statues and review standards in Taiwan. After completing the research, I suggest that a prospected bidder should also be recognized as an interested party that has standing in making claims against procuring authority for damages in order to ensure judicial review of important procuring decisions. Besides, Article 85.1 of the Government Procurement Act of Taiwan should be revised as “where a review decision or an unappealable court judgment specifies that the procuring entity is in breach of Acts and Regulations, the procuring entity shall proceed with a lawful alternative,” so that the protesting bidder will have the right for damages endowed by Article 85.3 of the same act if the procuring decision in question has been declared in breach of law only by the court but not by the Public Construction Commission. The right for compensation of tender preparation and protest costs stipulated by article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should be defined as a right arising from the procuring authority’s liability based on culpa in contrahendo in administrative law. Therefore, this article should be revised as “where the circumstance set forth in paragraph 1 occurs, the supplier may request the procuring entity to reimburse the reasonable expenses incurred by the supplier for the preparation of tender and the filing of protest and complaint.” Besides, just as the liability based on culpa in contrahendo is different from the liability arising from tort and the former does not substitute for the later, an unsuccessful tenderer’s claim for compensation based on Article 85.3 of the Government Procurement Act should not exclude his right in making other claims for other loss or damage according to the State Compensation Law.

The thesis deals with questions of pre-contractual liability which is seen as a very specific institute whose conception is diverse in different EU countries and also outside. The main research question is a difference between pre-contractual liability perception in the different countries and its full description in relation to the negotiations of business contracts with an emphasis on Czech law. In the first part, the author analyses historical background of pre-contractual liability in relation to Roman law and German-Austrian legal systems in which the professor Jhering developed that construction of culpa in contrahendo. In the following chapters, the author deals with the description and nature of pre-contractual liability, particularly in questions of whether they are contractual or delictual liability and enter into details the basic facts, example and extent of damages with respect to the European concept of pre-contractual liability. He concludes that the pre-contractual liability is in the European concept as delictual liability, with regard to the decision of European Court of Justice. The author simultaneously mentions that although similar facts in the legal systems, the extent of damages is very different when there is a clear dichotomy between positive and negative interesse. The...

No description available.

資訊是自主決定的基礎，而自主決定又同是私法自治與競爭秩序的核心基礎，隨著現代經濟社會的高度分工、專業化與複雜化，締約當事人間因資訊不對稱所導致的交易地位不對等問題，備受關注，因資訊不對稱所導致的契約失靈與市場失靈，亦亟待法律的介入調整，修正契約自由下的當事人自我負責原則，而資訊義務的強化，便成為民事法實質化過程中的一項重要工具。資訊義務(Informationspflicht)，意指提供資訊之義務，狹義意指當事人就特定事項，負有主動向他方告知及說明的義務，若將此義務再作廣義的延伸，則資訊的揭露必須真實完整。 由於資訊是一經濟財，具有財產價值，而資訊的搜集也需要投入成本及風險，因此，資訊的揭露會影響締約當事人的行為誘因，故在資訊義務的賦加上，涉及當事人私法自治利益的保障調和，若再加進法律經濟分析面向，則資訊的社會福祉效用、交易成本與效率觀點，也應被考慮，所以資訊誘因、資訊成本、資訊價值等觀點也應納入個案的利益衡量中，蓋契約法也具有經濟任務的功能面向。 關於我國法現行的締約前資訊責任規定，歸結現行民法詐欺規定、瑕疵擔保責任及締約上過失等規定，可以得出民法典對於資訊義務的違反，係採取「故意理論」(Vorsatzdogmatik)的立場。這個規範模式，是否可以滿足社會經濟環境變遷，引發檢討。對此，比較法上已有緩和故意理論而偏往過失責任發展的趨勢，而且在普通民法典之外的特別法，透過法令強制規定與行政管制的手段，針對特定的交易型態廣設諸多詳盡的資訊揭露規定，也反應了當事人的保護需求與強化資訊責任的必要性，故民法的相關規定也須實質化，以回應現實面的需求。從公平衡量的觀點，法律行為決定自由的保護是私法秩序的重要任務，過失違反資訊義務的風險，不能僅歸由被誤導之一方承擔，意思表示錯誤的規定，所能提供的救濟常常是不足夠的，過失責任的強化，可以強化當事人對於法律秩序的信賴，有助於降低契約準備成本和提升交換活動的效率，同時也可避免故意理論下因資訊欠缺所產生的免責特權，而對於資訊獲取提供必要的動力。然現行民法第二四五條之一，因其主客觀構成要件的嚴格性與功能的局限性，無法提供規範需求的滿足，有待更進一步的調整修正。在修法之前，從法律行為自我負責的實質化傾向、締約前資訊重要性的提升以及私法自治資訊義務的功能失常等因素，應可合理化法院在法律明文規定之外，以法律創設的方式從事規範的補充。對於締約前階段的法律關係，德國法學發展出來的締約上過失責任制度，為我國民法所繼受，並有部分案例類型的法典化，因此，經由締約上過失理論的運用，可以為締約前資訊義務的違反，提供法律創造的基礎。 資訊義務的功能在保障當事人的自主決定，使契約締結可以符合期待，雖然誠信原則可為資訊義務提供抽象的法律基礎，但對於具體的義務形成及內容，尚無法提供具體的指引，因此，如何合理化私法自治的限制與資訊風險的轉嫁，便有待資訊義務理論基礎與契約法理論的探討。雖然一般認為信賴責任理論可為締約上過失責任及締約前資訊義務提供理論依據，不過，實際上，雖然不實陳述責任可從信賴責任理論中導出，但是，對於說明義務而言，因單純的不作為尚未創設出信賴事實，因此，惟有將信賴轉化為規範上信賴或正當行為期待時，才能提供說理，惟何時存在規範上信賴或信賴的應然，仍須依靠其他指標，當事人一方在經濟生活中所從事的角色及專業，通常便成為他方當事人應然信賴與正當行為期待的基礎，縱經由對價思想將資訊經濟財概念引入，也會因資訊對價的難以具體化，而仍需依靠價格及角色期待的觀點來合理化，故依據信賴責任理論與對價思想，當事人一方的專業，時常是影響個案判斷的關鍵因素。此外，正當行為期待的觀點，不僅為當事人的個別保護提供基礎，也可在制度總體層面上，與減少交易成本的經濟觀點相配合，蓋經由誠正期待的保護，將締約前資訊風險歸由最小成本之一方負擔，可降低交易過程中的摩擦，增進分工專業經濟活動的效率，故資訊義務與自主決定的保護，也可將契約法的市場面向納入，經濟活動有效運作的保護，長期上可確保個人的決定自由，而個人決定自由的確保，也可促進市場有效競爭及維護市場調控，有助於整體制度的穩定。。 對於資訊義務的成立，在客觀因素上，可從「資訊需求」與「資訊期待可能性」，加以觀察。在交易過程中，可設想參與交易的當事人會具備最低必要資訊與一般基礎知識，以免在交易過程中須時時探查相對人能力而迭生調查成本，而當事人就自己商業領域範圍內之事項及一般的公開資訊，應可期待其為自力的資訊獲取，以免資訊努力的重覆投入，故原則上只有對於他方當事人無法自主獲取的特定重要資訊，才有主動說明的義務。所謂重要資訊，係指對於締約決定具有重要意義之事項，主要是指會影響契約目的實現的情事。經由此一重要性門檻，可以為契約嚴守原則(pacta sunt servanda)提供最低保護，確保契約效力的安定性，同時也意味著完全的資訊對等與完全的資訊揭露，係與契約自由及自我負責的基本原則，並不相符。對於資訊義務人的資訊期待可能性，應依交易觀點而為判斷，除特殊專業外，義務人的行為或表示、特別信賴的表徵、契約性質、交易性質、契約中的利益地位等等，也可推知資訊的期待可能性，此外，資訊誘因與資訊價值的社會福祉因素，以及具體個案中締約當事人雙方的利益平衡，也應納入考慮。在主觀因素上，在故意責任之外，另外建構過失責任，將督使當事人在交易過程中為必要注意。在法律效果上，違反資訊義務者，被害人得請求撤銷或廢棄契約，請求損害賠償，也享有拒絕履行抗辯權，此外，其亦可選擇調整契約作為損害賠償的方式。在故意責任時可適用詐欺規定及侵權行為規定，而過失責任時則依締約上過失請求，倘若締約前資訊義務的內容，涉及契約給付而成為契約內容一部分時，應被債務不履行責任所吸收。 在現代經濟交易過程中，廣告為締約前資訊問題的大宗紛爭來源，為現今競爭法與民事法的重要議題，不實廣告規範可增加事業投機行為的成本，減少廣告不實的誘因。廣告雖可傳遞資訊，然無法期待事業就全部不利事項予以全盤揭露，基於效能競爭及交易資訊透明化的要求，特定重要交易資訊的隱匿，會使交易相對人就產品比較、價格比較或條件比較，發生困難，減損購買決定自由與競爭正當秩序。對此，公平交易法雖未如德國不正競爭防止法增設廣告揭露事項的明文規定，但透過公平交易法第二十一條廣告規定及第二十四條禁止欺罔行為規定，還是可以發揮實際上的規範效用。不實廣告規定，雖係以行政管制方式為主，但亦有民事責任效果，雖然，違反不實廣告規定所締結之契約，係屬後續契約，原則上並不會違反禁止規定與公序良俗而當然無效，但公平交易法第三十條及第三十一條的妨害排除請求權及損害賠償請求權，仍可為個人提供一定的保護，此外，民法與消費者保護法的可適用性，並不被公平交易法所排斥，彼此間的相互補充，將可使當事人自主決定的保護，更加完整。