论文部分内容阅读
在司法实务中,相同类型的“凶宅”买卖纠纷案件存在着不同类型的法律适用结果。究其原因,一是对“凶宅”的概念没有科学的界定;二是对“凶宅”所涉利益的正当性缺少统一的认识;三是仅从意思表示瑕疵的路径出发对“凶宅”买卖合同的效力进行认定。本文在界定“凶宅”概念与多角度论证“凶宅”所涉利益正当性的基础上,运用类型化的案例研究方法,分析2012—2016年间我国关于“凶宅”的典型案件的法律适用结果,认为适用物之瑕疵担保责任是处理“凶宅”买卖纠纷的最优选择。
In judicial practice, there are different types of legal applicable results for the same types of sale disputes. The reason is that there is no scientific definition of the concept of “fierce house”; second, there is a lack of uniform understanding of the legitimacy of the interests involved in “fierce house”; thirdly, only from the path of expressing the defect, “Xiong Zha ” the effectiveness of the sale contract to identify. Based on the definition of the concept of “dwelling house” and the legitimacy of the benefits involved in the multi-angle argument and “dwelling house”, this article analyzes the typical cases of “dwelling house” in China from 2012 to 2016 by using the method of case study The legal application of the results, that the flawed warranty liability is to deal with “fierce home ” sale and purchase of the best choice.