| 關 鍵 詞： |
意思表示錯誤；單方虛偽意思表示；抽象輕過失；具體輕過失；重大過失；故意 |
| 中文摘要： |
本篇文章探討意思表示錯誤之起源與發展，以法史學與法律比較學為基礎，分析檢討我國民法總則意思表示錯誤之幾個問題，例如：
表意人「故意」使意思與表示不一致，為單方虛偽意思表示；表意人「過失」使意思與表示不一致，為意思表示錯誤。民法第 88 條第 1 項但書所規定之過失，通說認為是指抽象輕過失，表意人祇要有抽象輕過失，即不得撤銷錯誤之意思表示，其法律效果與單方虛偽意思表示相同，相當於將「抽象輕過失」等同於「故意」處理。最高法院採具體輕過失說，將「具體輕過失」等同於「故意」處理。意思表示錯誤與單方虛偽意思表示，是否應該相同處理？針對這個問題，2017 年 6 月修正之日本新民法第 95 條與德國民法第 119 條第 1 項有不同之規定，對我國民法第 88 條第 1 項但書之規定，在法律解釋層面或立法政策層面，應該會有啟發之作用。
此外，依民法第 184 條第 1 項與第 220 條第 1 項之規定，就損害賠償，係採故意或過失之責任原則。然而，表意人撤銷錯誤之意思表示後，學界通說認為，表意人縱使無過失，仍應對善意無過失之相對人或第三人負損害賠償責任，其理論基礎何在，似有進一步研究之必要。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
expression of intent under a mistake；unilateral false expression of intent；abstract minor neglience；concrete minor neglience；gross neglience；willfulness |
| 英文摘要： |
This article explores the origin and evolution of the institution of expression of intent under a mistake. Through the lens of legal historiography and comparative jurisprudence, it analyses and critically reviews aspects of expression of intent under a mistake as set forth in the General Provisions of the Civil Code. Unilateral false expression of intent occurs when the disagreement between expression and intent is willfully caused by the expresser. Expression of intent under a mistake occurs when the disagreement is resulted from negligence of the expresser. According to the mainstream scholarly opinion, “negligence” as stipulated under the proviso of article 88 of the Civil Code should be interpreted as “abstract minor neglience”. Therefore, the expresser may not revoke what he has expressed upon the finding of neglience as such and the expression of intent in question stands as in the case of unilateral false expression of intent. That is to say, here, “abstract minor neglience” and “willfulness” are treated as the same. In its 1973 Taiwan Appeal No. 140 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, in this context, neglience shall be construed as “concrete minor neglience. Thus, “concrete minor neglience” is treated the same as “willfulness”. Should expression of intent under a mistake and unilateral false expression of intent be viewed as the same in the eyes of the law? Article 95 of the Japanese Civil Code as amended in June, 2017 and paragraph 1 of article 119 of the German Civil Code provide different rules, which should be able to enlighten us on the interpretation and legislative policy of the proviso of article 88 of the Civil Code.
In addition, paragraph 1 of article 184 of the Civil Code provides that a person who, intentionally or negligently, unlawfully injures the right of another person is liable to make compensation to the other party for the damage arising from this and paragraph 1 of article 220 provides that the obligor is responsible for intention and negligence. In other words, the award of damages is based on intent or negligence. According to the mainstream scholarly opinion, however, the expresser becomes liable for the loss of the bona fide other or third party by revoking his mistakenly expressed intent, he himself is of no fault is not a defense. The reason, and theoretical foundation, for imposing this liability without fault seem to require further study.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、前言
一、意思表示錯誤是棘手難解之法律問題
二、問題之提出
三、本文之研究範圍
貳、偏重表意人意思自主之原則
一、羅馬法、共同法與理性主義之自然法學派
二、法國民法（1804 年生效，2016 年修正）
三、德國民法（1896 年國會通過，1900 年施行）
四、瑞士債法（1912 年修正生效）
五、日本民法（1898 年生效，2017 年修正）
參、強調相對人信賴保護之原則
一、奧地利民法（1811 年完成制定）
二、英美法
肆、民法總則關於錯誤規定之檢討
一、「誤載無傷真意」與「表示行為錯誤」之區別
二、解釋先行於撤銷之原則
三、表意人若知其事情即不為意思表示
四、民法第 88 條第 1 項但書所規定之過失
五、意思表示錯誤之法律效果
伍、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|