Research On The Relationship Between Fault In Negotiation And Fraud

What is the relationship between fault in negotiation and fraud?The key lies in the choice of the remedy path in the case of negligently breaching pre-contractual duty to disclose.This is the core issue that this article needs to deal with.First of all,by combing the different theoretical perspectives on the relationship between fault in negotiation and fraud in Germany and China,the above core issues were found Secondly,the method of exclusion method is used to eliminate fraud and major misunderstanding treatment paths,and to demonstrate the necessity of fault in negotiation treatment path.Demonstrate the possibility of the path of fault in negotiation again,and finally draw the conclusion of the free competition relationship between fault in negotiation and fraudThis article is divided into four parts.The first part is to sort out,elaborate,and compare the representative views on fault in negotiation and fraud relations in Germany and China.The five representative views are divided into two processing paths.The first is the framework for legal actions.To achieve the priority of the misleading remedy fraud rules and the system competition theory;the second is to remove the function of fault in negotiation and abolish the right to claim the contract,so that it stays on monetary damages compensation,that is,the theory of logical undertaking,or the fraud There are different requirements for the right of revocation and the abolition of the right to contract,so as to achieve the difference between the two,thereby avoiding inconsistencies in evaluation,that is,the competing claims and two compromises.Through comparison,we find the core problem of this article:the center of engagement of the above point of view lies in how to deal with the case of negligently breaching the pre-contractual obligation.The second part discusses the necessity of the path of fault in negotiation.Mainly through reflection on fraud and major misunderstandings,to exclude its application in the case of negligently breaching the pre-contractual obligation to disclose.In the fraud system,on the one hand,the intentional elements of fraud are followed,both theoretically and practically;on the other hand,the breakthrough of intentional fraud to negligent fraud is only a theoretical assumption,which lacks a basis for argument.In the system of major misunderstandings,on the one hand,the responsibility of others cannot be covered by one's own responsibility;on the other hand,treating other people's responsibilities equal to their own responsibilities will lead to the expression of a person who has made an error due to the wrongfulness of others.The person who expressed the error is the same,and as the obligor of compensation,he shall bear a liability for no fault.The third section discusses the possibility of fault in negotiation.It is mainly discussed from the perspective of external and internal specifications.In terms of external norms,the non-enclosed and non-exclusive nature of the fraud norms leaves room for fault in negotiation handling,negligently breaching pre-contractual obligations.The third-party fraud system and the major misunderstanding system give the right holder the right to revoke the law.In the case of negligently breaching the prior contract description obligation,the misled person has the right to rescind the contract or to achieve the same effect.In terms of internal norms,that is,the fault in negotiation norms,it starts from the principle of liability of fault in negotiation and the effect of law,and provides the correct direction for deriving the right to abolish the contract from the liability for contractual negligenceThe fourth part is the conclusion.Firstly,through the second and third part of the demonstration,I found that the representative views combed in the first part could not accurately show the relationship between fault in negotiation and fraud.Then from the perspective of system development,fault in negotiation making or development made late and the previously formulated fraud belong to a free competition relationship.The two are in principle not exclusive but optional.