كليدواژه :
مسئوليت قراردادي , مسئوليت خارج قراردادي , خسارت تنبيهي , تخفيف خسارت , اراده
چكيده فارسي :
مسئوليت مدني و انواع آن، موضوعي است كه از ديرباز مورد توجه حقوق‌دان‌ها بوده و مباحث مختلفي پيرامون آن شكل گرفته است. با وجود اين، هنوز اختلاف نظرهايي در خصوص تعريف، مصاديق و وحدت يا تعدد مسئوليت خارج قراردادي نسبت به مسئوليت قراردادي وجود دارد. پيدايش چنين اختلاف‌هايي تا حد زيادي ريشه در عدم مطالعۀ دقيق و همه‌جانبه پيرامون ضابطۀ تشخيص و تفكيك اين دو مسئوليت دارد. ضابطه‌اي كه هم به اختلاف نظر در خصوص بعضي از مصاديق پايان دهد و هم در مورد مصاديق جديدي كه مطالعۀ زيادي پيرامون آن‌ها نشده است، تعيين تكليف كند. هرچند با مطالعۀ تأليف‌هاي موجود مي‌توان بعضي ملاك‌ها را استخراج كرد، ولي نقدهاي وارد بر هركدام از اين ملاك‌ها و عدم جامعيت و مانعيت آن‌ها، دليلي است كه اهميت هرچه بيشتر ارائۀ ضابطه‌اي مشخص را نمايان مي‌سازد. در اين مقاله، اراده به‌عنوان ضابطۀ تعيين قلمرو مسئوليت خارج قراردادي و تمييز آن از قراردادي پيشنهاد مي‌شود. برخلاف رويكردي عيني كه معمولاً در خصوص اراده و قرارداد ناشي از آن وجود دارد، اين مقاله به تبيين وجه ذهني اين مفاهيم به‌عنوان ضابطه مي‌پردازد. از اين منظر، اراده بايد اصيل و حاصل ابتكار طرفين باشد. همچنين، فرضِ تعلقِ اراده به تعهداتي ممكن است كه در راستاي هدف و كاركرد غايي قرارداد باشد. نتيجۀ درنظر گرفتن اراده با اين اوصاف به‌عنوان ضابطۀ تعيين قلمرو ضمان قهري اين است كه گاه در غياب عقد، ارادۀ پيش‌گفته موجود و منشأ اثر است. همچنين، گاه به‌رغم وجود قرارداد، ارادۀ ابرازشده از سوي طرفينْ واجد ويژگي‌هاي لازم نبوده، نمي‌تواند مبنايي براي مسئوليت قراردادي باشد. از طرف ديگر، بعضي تفاوت‌هاي موجود در خصوص ميزان جبران خسارت قراردادي و خارج قراردادي مانند تخفيف يا تشديد آن، ريشه در اين ضابطه دارد كه در همين مقاله به آن پرداخته مي‌شود.
كليدواژه‌ها
چكيده لاتين :
Extra-contractual liability in its wide sense, is defined as the compensation of losses in the absent of a contract. Although different discussions have been carried out regarding this concept, there are considerable controversies in respect of definition, examples and unity or plurality of extra-contractual liability and contractual liability. It seems that these controversies are mostly the result of the lack of studying of the distinguishing criterion between these two kinds of liability. A criterion which can put an end to some controversies regarding the examples of these two kinds of liability as well as deciding about the new examples which might not be fully comprehensively studied.
Although, different criterions can be extracted from existing studies, some critics show the necessity of proposing a specific and acceptable criterion.
Some criterions can be distracted from current studies, but they would not prevent non related examples to enter into the scope of the extra-contractual liability. In other word, these criterions are too wide. On the other hand, the perspective about some notions which are used as the current criterions, are not correct. For instance, “contract” itself is considered as one of the criterions. It means that, whenever there is a contract, the liability which arises is contractual. Otherwise, it is considered non- contractual. In this criterion, contract is considered as a material instrument. In other word, the objective aspect of contract is important in this sense, which seems critical from our point of view.
Therefore, in this thesis, “volition or will" is proposed as the element which can distinguish contractual and non- contractual liability. Despite the usual objective perspective towards volition and the contract sprang from it, this thesis focuses on the subjective aspect of the said notion.
The result of considering volition as the criterion for determining the scope of the extra-contractual and contractual liability is that there might be some situations in which, despite the absence of contract, parties' volition exists. As the result, the liability of parties is considered contractual, although there is no contract between them. For example, the breach of some obligations such as confidentiality which may last even after the termination of a contract is contractual. This is because; the parties’ volition can be attributed to this obligation, although the objective contract between them is terminated. Moreover, sometimes in spite of the existence of the contract, parties' volition doesn't entail the required specifications and as a consequence, can't serve as the basis for the contractual liability. This result is true especially for implicit terms and conditions. These terms can join the contract and might serve as the basis of a contractual liability only if parties’ will is allocated to them therefore, in case of parties’ ignorance about a customary obligation (as an implicit obligation), its breach cannot cause contractual liability.
