全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

实际施工人对外购买行为的责任归属研究
Research on the Attribution of Responsibility for the Actual Constructor’s External Purchase

DOI: 10.12677/ojls.2024.123256, PP. 1783-1794

Keywords: 实际施工人,合同相对性,表见代理
The Actual Contractor
, The Relativity of the Contract, The Apparent Agency

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

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。
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.

References

[1]  魏西霞, 路亚红. 建筑施工中项目部不规范运营所致民事责任研究——以122件实际施工人借款和买卖纠纷为样本[C]//陕西省高级人民法院法院改革与民商事审判问题研究——全国法院第29届学术讨论会获奖论文集(下). 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2018: 9.
[2]  易亚东. 建设工程挂靠施工中相关对外债务的承担确认[J]. 中国检察官, 2017(22): 70-72.
[3]  黎明, 蒋晓亮. “穿透式审判思维”下挂靠人权利救济的困境与破解[C]//重庆市第五中级人民法院. 人民法院为服务新发展阶段、贯彻新发展理念、构建新发展格局提供司法保障与民商事法律适用问题研究——全国法院第33届学术讨论会获奖论文集(下). 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2022: 17.
[4]  王永起. 民法典视域下建设工程合同十大问题研究[J]. 山东法官培训学院学报, 2023, 9(1): 61-89.
[5]  时明涛. 民法典时代实际施工人制度的理解与完善[J]. 河北法学, 2022, 40(9): 119-141.
[6]  贾莉, 王延红. 四步裁判法: 项目经理借款责任的认定——以143份裁判文书为样本的考察[C]//江西省宜春市中级人民法院, 湖南省岳阳市中级人民法院, 最高人民法院. 法院改革与民商事审判问题研究——全国法院第29届学术讨论会获奖论文集(下). 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2018: 15.
[7]  范欠歌, 陈贝, 武景格. 实际施工人对合同相对性的突破及限制[J]. 人民司法(案例), 2018(11): 14-16 40.
[8]  廖振中. 表见代理司法裁判中法官集体行动逻辑实证研究[J]. 政法论坛, 2023, 41(2): 169-179.
[9]  王楷. 建筑施工企业项目经理职务代理和表见代理问题刍议[J]. 山东审判, 2017, 33(5): 26-30.
[10]  龙州. 实际施工人适用表见代理的司法裁判规则研究[D]: [硕士学位论文]. 贵阳: 贵州大学, 2022.
[11]  占子明. 表见代理“有理由相信”在建设工程领域的司法认定——以市场主体的人之类型化为视角[C]//南昌铁路运输中级法院. 人民法院为服务新发展阶段、贯彻新发展理念、构建新发展格局提供司法保障与民商事法律适用问题研究——全国法院第33届学术讨论会获奖论文集(下). 北京: 人民法院出版社, 2022: 13.

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133