Research On Gefalligkelten

There always tension between law and morality, because they both wants to bring some fields into their adjustment range which include "Gefalligkelten". At cases of inviting friends for dinner or tourism, free ride and helping friends mail the envelope, through eating dinner or tourism, people who actualize "Gefalligkelten" and other parties promote their friendship and deepen their emotion. The above situation is supposed to be adjusted by morality. But when people who should actualize "Gefalligkelten" don't actualize it factually, there will be problems that whether liability for breach of contract or tort liability should be assumed.To solve the above question, how to define "Gefalligkelten" is very important. In traditional theory, "Gefalligkelten"is defined as action that don't bound by law. But there are "theory of juristic act", "theory of contract", "theory of factual act" and "theory of groundless management" in our country recently. Although the immerging theories are different, they all endeavor to bring "Gefalligkelten" into the range of law. In fact, "Gefalligkelten" refers to the action that can't cause legal effect and be bound by law. In mixed situation, "Gefalligkelten" may de regarded as contract which only show that the range of "Gefalligkelten" and contract coincide in special case not all "Gefalligkelten" being contract. "Gefalligkelten" can't be included by factual act likewise. In practice,an act being"Gefalligkelten"or contract is judged by having declaration of will or not, transaction custom, good faith and interests of parties. The article refines the criteria subsequently.Now that "Gefalligkelten" isn't juristic act or contract, it can't lead to liability for breach of contract especially non-true liquidated damages and reliance interests damages generally. For the foundation of excluding claim for unjust enrichment, we can find in the theory of natural obligation. The key question is that whether "Gefalligkelten" can lead to tort liability. To solve this problem, we should distinguish "Gefalligkelten" and the tort that follows "Gefalligkelten". It is the latter not "Gefalligkelten" leads to tort liability. But "Gefalligkelten" still can be regarded as the foundation for restricting tort liability which is realized by applying the provisions of deduction and exemption of liability in the gratuitous contract. When liability of people who actualize "Gefalligkelten" can not be reduced by the above way, we should reduce the liability accordingly. In light of the differences between property interests and personal interests, liability of people who actualize "Gefalligkelten" is confined to slight negligence in the personal injury. When people who actualize "Gefalligkelten"are intent or significant negligence, they should be responsible for property damages.All theories will be meaningful only when they are applied to our country's practice. In the last past, the article starts from the practical disputes and search for the legal foundation that regulates the tort produced by "Gefalligkelten" in our law from the view of interpretative theory to realizes the remedy to victims in our legal framework now. Meanwhile, from the view of legislative theory, this part suggests that the law prescribes "Gefalligkelten" such as pick-up to facilitate the judicial practice.