学界普遍认为动机错误不应受到关注,并不影响法律行为的效力。一方当事人不能基于自身对现实认识错误而将风险转移到相对人身上,这无疑使表意人通过错误获得重新订立法律行为的机会而因此拥有比法律行为成立之前更为优越的法律地位,对相对人而言是极为不利的。对于动机错误,当事人为了保障基于现实设想而做出法律行为的可行性,或许可将相关现实事实作为条件以实现目的,或将现实事实作为法律行为的内容,因此而得以保障自己设想的可行性。在以意思表示为核心的私法自治理念下,为当事人的意思自由提供充分的保障,这也同时要求每个当事人也应对自己的自治行为负责,在表意人基于对现实的考虑,并设想法律行为的可行性,并据此作出意思表示,但却不愿因此承担基于错误假想而带来的法律风险,有悖于意思自治的理念。然我国并无动机错误制度而仅有重大误解并且存在较多问题,本文通过对比各国立法中动机错误的调整,以期对我国错误制度的建立健全可以起到微薄之力。 Academic circles generally believe that motivation errors should not be concerned about, does not affect the effectiveness of legal acts. The fact that one party can not transfer the risk to the relative based on its own misunderstanding of the reality will undoubtedly make the iden- tifier gain the chance to re-enter the legal act through mistakes and thus has a superior legal status before the establishment of the legal act, In terms of extremely unfavorable. For motivation errors, in order to ensure the feasibility of making legal acts based on realistic assumptions, the parties may be able to use relevant factual facts as conditions to achieve their goals or regard actual facts as the content of legal acts so as to ensure the feasibility of their own ideas . Under the notion of self-government of private law with meaning as the core, it also provides adequate protection for the parties’ freedom of choice. It also requires each party to be responsible for its own autonomy. When the ideographic person considers the reality and considers the legal acts It is not willing to assume the legal risk arising from the false assumption because it is contrary to the concept of autonomy of purpose. However, there is not a major misunderstanding and there are still many problems in our country. Through comparing the adjustment of motivation errors in the legislation of different countries, this paper can play a modest contribution to the establishment and perfection of our error system.