论文部分内容阅读
有关债的本质理论界有两种学说,即纯粹义务说与责任效力说。但是此两种理论皆无法解决自身的理论周延性问题,同时也无法解释合同法实践中的诸多理论难题。将债的本质认定为一种事实状态性的法律关系,既可以发挥其对私法自治、公正秩序等价值的保障作用,同时也可以解决关于诸多相关具体制度如负担行为与处分行为的区分、自然之债与无责任之债的认同等问题。同时,债的本质的事实状态性定位对于解决我国《合同法》第132条的理论困境也有重大意义。
There are two theories about the nature of debt theory, namely, the theory of pure obligation and the effect of liability. However, neither of these two theories can solve its own theoretical problems of ductility, nor can it explain many theoretical problems in the practice of contract law. Recognizing the nature of the debt as a factual legal relationship can not only give play to its role of safeguarding the value of autonomy and fairness in private law, but also can resolve the distinction between many related specific systems such as burdens and sanctions, Debt and non-liability debt recognition and other issues. At the same time, the factual status orientation of the nature of debt is also of great significance for solving the theoretical predicament of Article 132 of the Contract Law of our country.