论文部分内容阅读
合同共同欺诈中的协助欺诈者相对于合同而言属于欺诈第三人。由于欺诈方与协助欺诈者的欺诈属于共同欺诈,故在该合同被撤销后理应由欺诈方与协助欺诈者共同向受欺诈方承担民事责任,但协助欺诈者并不是该合同的一方当事人,致使责令其承担侵权连带责任在我国《合同法》上成为不可能。我国可以借鉴外国做法,将欺诈定性为侵权行为,从而将合同共同欺诈定性为共同侵权行为,并在此基础上确认协助欺诈者应当依照我国《侵权责任法》的有关规定与欺诈方一起向合同中的受欺诈方承担侵权连带责任;至于承担侵权责任份额,应当根据欺诈行为在合同订立与履行过程中所起作用的大小来确定。
Fraudulent assistance in contractual co-fraud is third-party fraud in relation to the contract. Since the fraudsters and fraudsters assisting the fraudsters are jointly fraudulent, the fraudsters and assisting fraudsters should be jointly liable to the fraudulent parties after the contracts are revoked. However, the assistance fraudsters are not parties to the contract. As a result, It is impossible for them to order their joint and several liability for infringement to become “contract law” in our country. China can learn from foreign practices, the fraud is characterized as infringement, so as to characterize the contractual common fraudulent fraud as a joint act of infringement, and on this basis to confirm the assistance of fraudsters should be in accordance with the relevant provisions of China’s “Tort Liability Act” together with the fraud to the contract In the fraudulent party to bear joint and several liability for infringement; As bear the liability for infringement, should be based on the size of the fraudulent acts in the contract and the implementation process to determine the size.