%0 Journal Article
%T 实际施工人对外购买行为的责任归属研究<br>Research on the Attribution of Responsibility for the Actual Constructor’s External Purchase
%A 余沁畅
%J Open Journal of Legal Science
%P 1783-1794
%@ 2329-7379
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/ojls.2024.123256
%X 通过分析实际施工人为项目施工而对外购买相关建筑材料所引发的债务承担纠纷的判决书，可知司法实践中存在实际施工人单独责任、施工企业责任和实际施工人与施工企业共同责任三类责任类型。比较这些裁判的结果、思路和依据，发现整体上存在同案不同判、同判的裁判思路迥异的问题；在事实认定和法律适用上，存在合同主体认定不一、实际施工人行为性质认定混乱等问题。裁判差异化的原因包括：一是裁判理念上债权人保护主义的趋向明显，二是事实认定上实际施工人行为性质的认定混乱，三是规范适用上粗放立法模式下法律适用混乱。为消弭前述司法分歧，提出以下完善建议：一是裁判者应当秉持实质公平的裁判理念，二是裁判者应当查明案件相关事实，统一事实认定标准；三是完善实际施工人对外购买行为责任归属的相关法律。<br />
By analyzing the judgments of the debt assumption disputes arising from the actual constructor’s purchase of relevant building materials for the construction of the project, it can be seen that there are three types of liability in judicial practice: the sole liability of the actual constructor, the liability of the construction enterprise, and the joint liability of the actual constructor and the construction enterprise. Comparing the results, ideas and basis of these judgments, it is found that there are problems of different judgments in the same case and different adjudication ideas in the same judgment. In terms of the determination of facts and the application of law, there are problems such as inconsistent identification of the subject of the contract and confusion in the determination of the nature of the actual contractor’s behavior. The reasons for the differentiation of adjudication include: first, the obvious trend of creditor protectionism in the concept of adjudication, second, the confusion in determining the nature of the actual constructor’s behavior in the determination of facts, and third, the confusion in the application of law under the extensive legislative model in the application of norms. In order to eliminate the above-mentioned judicial differences, the following suggestions are put forward: first, adjudicators should uphold the concept of substantive fairness, and second, adjudicators should ascertain the relevant facts of the case and unify the standards for determining facts; The third is to improve the relevant laws on the attribution of responsibility for the actual constructor's external purchase.
%K 实际施工人，合同相对性，表见代理<br>The Actual Contractor
%K The Relativity of the Contract
%K The Apparent Agency
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=83473