Research On The Protection Obligations Of Benefactors To Beneficiaries In The Favor Relationships

In interpersonal interaction of social activities, as a result of the need of human feelings or moral, some subjects often promote the interests of others. But they do not have the will of being bound by law. This is the friendship behavior, which is neither a legal act, nor a factual behavior. It is a social behavior which lacks legal senses. When a benefactor obliges others, he ought to compensate for the loss caused by the improper behavior and assume tort liability. Why benefactors ought to assume tort liability? Because the right of the beneficiary protected by the benefactor has been violated, that is, the benefactor do not fulfill the duty of protection. In other words, the reason for the civil liability is that the benefactor violates the protection duty. And the existence of protection obligations of benefactors is based on the existence of social relationship, and based on the prevention and control measures benefactors ought to take when they obliges others, which are analogous to normal attention obligations which citizens should assume in tort law. Article 37 of Tort Law in our country has established security obligation. In consideration of that granting-a-favor relation has the similar context with that obligation, the protective obligation of benefactors shall apply that clause. This is a major source of protection obligations of benefactors. When a benefactor obliges others, if he promises to prevent the damages suffered by the beneficiary, protection obligations arise as well. Moreover, protection obligations of a benefactor will also arise when the beneficiary is caught in a dangerous state as a result of the earlier behavior of the benefactor. This is the three sources of protection obligations. As far as the nature of protection obligations of benefactors, there are four doctrines including the doctrine of Agreed Obligation, the doctrine of Collateral Obligation, the doctrine of the Duty of Care in tort law and the doctrine of Moral Obligation. I think the results depend on different situations. When the commitment of a benefactor lacks the will of being bound by law, or the beneficiary is caught in a dangerous state as a result of the earlier behavior of the benefactor, the nature of protection obligation of the benefactor is the nature of a duty in tort law; When a benefactor makes a commitment to the beneficiary which has the will of being bound by law, this kind of situation should be divided into another two kinds of situations:if the commitment of the benefactor contains the meaning of protection to the beneficiary, the protection obligation of the benefactor is an agreed obligation in contract law. If not, it is a collateral obligation. In the process of obliging, there are three stages including negotiations, implementation and aftermath in order. In the stage of negotiations, benefactors should negotiate with the opposite in the attitude of honesty in order to promote the process of obliging. And benefactors should protect the interests of beneficiaries and have confidentiality obligations and confidentiality obligations. In the stage of implementation, benefactors should prevent beneficiaries to fall into a state of suffering damage. When the rights and interests of beneficiaries face danger, benefactors should fulfill the duty of care and assistance, for example, benefactors should send beneficiaries who are drunk and have adverse reactions to hospitals. In the stage of aftermath, benefactors should also fulfill the corresponding late obligations, so that the obliging behavior could be successful completed. And benefactors should safeguard results of obliging and the rights and interests of beneficiaries, for example, benefactors should keep secrets from beneficiaries after completing obliging. On account of that obliging is free and kind, and that only beneficiaries benefit, in accordance with the principle of fairness, and referring to the rules of free contract, degree of care of protection obligation of benefactors should not be very high, and it should adopt the standard of a duty of care of the average person. As for how to determine whether a benefactor perform the protection obligation appropriately, given the complexity of the social life and the diversity of obliging, it is unable to provide a unified standard. Only in specific situations can we make a standards conforming to the principle of fairness. In addition, the burden of proof on the benefactor which is on account of that he fails to fulfill the protection obligation appropriately should be limited, that is, the scope of the burden of proof on the benefactor should be limited in the way of enumeration and summarization.