论文部分内容阅读
德国不当得利法通过概括条款的类型化和开列完备的法律原因清单来抑制概括条款过度涵盖的内在倾向,并因应不同类型更为灵活地适用利益灭失抗辩。中国简约的不当得利法同样需要类似的配套工作。文章考察了《民法通则》第92条以及两部中国民法典学者建议稿不当得利章节的利弊得失。总体来看,学说与判例虽多持类型化学说,但就类型化的价值以及如何影响法律适用的认识仍嫌不足;法律原因的清单尚称完备,不过仍有诸多细节有待深入讨论。
The German Unjust Enrichment Law suppresses the inherent tendencies covered by general provisions through the typification of summaries of clauses and provides a comprehensive list of legal reasons and more flexible application of defenses of interests in response to different types. China’s simple unjust enrichment law also needs similar supporting work. The article examines the pros and cons of Article 92 of the “General Principles of Civil Law” and the chapter on unjust enrichment proposed by two scholars of Chinese civil law. On the whole, doctrine and jurisprudence hold the principle of type chemistry, but there is still not enough understanding of the value of the type and how to influence the application of law. The list of legal reasons is still well known, but there are still many details to be discussed in depth.