| dc.creator (作者) | 陳自強 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chen, Tzu-Chiang | |
| dc.date (日期) | 2011-10 | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 20-May-2016 16:38:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 20-May-2016 16:38:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 20-May-2016 16:38:40 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96808 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 比較法上，契約損害賠償責任基本上有歐陸法系之過失責任原則及英美法系之嚴格責任之對立，但實際適用之結果卻大同小異。歐陸法系過失責任原則之下，不僅對過失本身採客觀化之過失概念，更承認許多例外，英美法系之嚴格責任亦承認有免責事由，二者已無不可跨越之鴻溝，差距也不斷縮小。英美法嚴格責任承認債務人在一定情形下免責，但債務人不須負損害賠償責任之原因，不在於不可歸責，基本上係因損害並非債務人依契約所應承擔之風險，故不在擔保責任範圍內。歐陸法系傳統見解固然仍認為債務人不負債務不履行責任之正當性在於不具主觀非難性，即無故意過失，但以契約拘束力正當化債務人無過失責任及確定當事人契約責任界限之思想，也浸透到歐陸法系。 | |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | In spite of the fact that the liability for breach of contract in common law is strict, and the fault principle dominates in civil law, this difference is only theoretical; the practical results are very similar. Both systems recognize some exceptions to the general rules. The reason for the avoidance of the strict liability in Common law and for the non-fault responsibility for breach of contract in civil law, especially the reformed German BGB in 2002, is basically the same. That is the binding force of contract. | |
| dc.format.extent | 978022 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學評論, 123, 1-50 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 歸責事由; 過失責任; 擔保責任; 手段債務; 結果債務 | |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Responsibility for The Breach of Contract; Fault Principle; Guarantee; Duty to Achieve a Specific Result; Duty of Best Efforts | |
| dc.title (題名) | 契約過失責任與無過失責任之間 ——歸責事由之比較法觀察 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | |
