請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73295
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 陳聰富 | |
dc.contributor.author | Wei-Di Yu | en |
dc.contributor.author | 余瑋迪 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T07:26:57Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-07-10 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2019-07-10 | |
dc.date.issued | 2019 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2019-06-24 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分
(一)專書 Karl Larenz(著)、陳愛娥(譯)(1996),《法學方法論》,臺北:五南。 方嘉麟(1994),《以比較法觀點論信託法制繼受之問題》,臺北:自刊。 方嘉麟(1996),《信託法之理論與實務》,2版,臺北:月旦。 王志誠(2016),《信託法》,增訂5版,臺北:五南。 王澤鑑(2012),《人格權法》,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2012),《債法原理》,增訂3版,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2015),《不當得利》,增訂新版,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2017),《損害賠償》,臺北:自刊。 司法院、國立政治大學法律研究所(合譯)(1987),《美國法律整編:判決法、財產法、回復法》,臺北:司法院秘書處。 邱聰智(2003),《新訂民法債編通則(上)》,新訂1版,臺北:自刊。 孫森焱(2013),《民法債編總論(下冊)》,102年修訂版,臺北:自刊。 陳自強(2012),《契約之成立與生效》,2版,臺北:自刊。 陳自強(2015),《契約違反與履行請求》,臺北:元照 陳自強(2016),《違約責任與契約解消》,臺北:元照。 陳聰富(2017),《侵權行為法原理》,頁430-431,臺北:元照。 傅崐成(2010),《美國契約法精義》,臺北:五南。 曾世雄(著)、詹森林(續著)(2005),《損害賠償法原理》,3版,臺北:新學林。 曾宛如(2007),《公司管理與資本市場法制專論(一)》,2版,臺北:元照。 劉春堂(2011),《民法債編各論(中)》,臺北:自刊。 劉春堂(2011),《民法債編通則(一):契約法總論》,增修版,臺北:自刊。 劉連煜(2016),《現代公司法》,增訂12版,臺北:自刊。 潘秀菊、陳佳聖(2017),《信託法概要》,臺北:新學林。 賴英照(2017),《最新證券交易法解析》,臺北:元照。 謝銘洋(2014),《智慧財產權法》,5版,臺北:元照。 (二)論文集 王澤鑑(1993),〈出售土地被徵收時之危險負擔、不當得利及代償請求權〉,氏著,《民法學說與判例研究(六)》,7版,頁111-112,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2009),〈二重買賣〉,氏著,《民法學說與判決研究(四)》,頁168,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2009),〈土地徵收補償金交付請求權〉,氏著,《民法學說與判例研究(七)》,頁140,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2009),〈出租他人之物、轉租與不當得利〉,氏著,《民法學說與判例研究(四)》,頁213,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2009),〈出賣土地於移轉登記前被徵收時,買受人向出賣人主張交付受領補償費之請求權基礎:法學方法論上之檢討〉,氏著,《民法學說與判例研究(五)》,頁261,臺北:自刊。 王澤鑑(2009),〈物之瑕疵擔保與不當得利〉,氏著,《民法學說與判例研究(第三冊)》,頁109-119,臺北:自刊。 (三)期刊論文 王志誠、魏子凱(2009),〈從受託人觀點談臺灣信託法之問題與修正方向:以受託人義務為中心〉,《月旦財經法雜誌》,16期,頁1-26。 向明恩(2015),〈剖析代償請求權之本質與消滅時效之起算:以最高法院100年度台上字第1833號判決為楔子〉,《月旦民商法》,48期,頁138-154。 吳英傑(2015),〈論受託人違反信託本旨而為信託財產之處分:救濟方法既其法理基礎〉,《臺大法學論叢》,44卷2期,頁407-456。 林大洋(2018),〈不當得利之發展與演進:以實證研究為中心並兼論與沒收新制的衝突〉,《法令月刊》,69卷3期,頁12-35。 莊永丞(2019),〈論夫妻短線交易合併持股之歸入權行使〉,《臺大法學論叢》,48卷1期,頁211-262。 陳自強(1995),〈雙務契約不當得利返還之請求〉,《政大法學評論》,54期,頁205-249。 陳忠五(2012),〈銀行職員超額放款的契約責任與侵權責任〉,《台灣法學雜誌》,207期,頁35-55。 陳聰富(2000),〈侵權行為法上之因果關係〉,《臺大法學論叢》,29卷2期,頁175-307。 陳聰富(2002),〈代償請求權〉,《台灣本土法學》,32期,頁149-154。 陳聰富(2006),〈人身侵害之損害概念〉,《臺大法學論叢》,35卷1期,頁47-110。 劉春堂(1998),〈論信託財產之分別管理〉,《輔仁法學》,17期,頁145-158。 謝哲勝(2005),〈民法第二二五條第二項的類推適用〉,《月旦法學教室》,32期,頁14-15。 (四)學位論文 李承陶(2012),《從不完整契約觀點論契約法預設規定的設計》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。 莊涵雯(2008),《違約救濟與契約利益分類之經濟分析:以美國法之學說與實務運作為基礎》,國立臺灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文(未出版)。 閻正剛(2013),《論違約損害賠償之計算》,國立臺灣大學科際整合法律學研究所碩士論文(未出版)。 二、日文部分 笹川明道(2013),〈米国での「第三次原状回復.不当利得法リステイトメント」の刊行について〉,《神戸学院法学》,42巻3、4号,頁349-363。 三、英文部分 (一)專書 Barnett, K. (2012). Accounting for Profit for Breach of Contract: Theory and Practice. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. Birks, P. (1989). An Introduction to The Law of Restitution. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. Birks, P. (2005). Unjust Enrichment (2nd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Burrows, A. (2004). Remedy for Torts and Breach of Contract (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Burrows, A. (2011). The Law of Restitution (3rd ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Burrows, A. (2012). A Restatement of the English Law of Unjust Enrichment. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Chen-Wishart, M. (2012). Contract Law (4th ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Dagan, H. (2004). The Law and Ethics of Restitution. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University. Edelman, J. (2002). Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. Farnsworth, E. A. (2004). Contracts (4th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. Harder, S. (2010). Measuring Damages in the Law of Obligations: The Search for Harmonised Principles. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. Hedley, S. (2001). Restitution: Its Division and Ordering. London, United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell. Hedley, S. (2005). A Critical Introduction to Restitution. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Jaffey, P. (2000). The nature and scope of restitution. Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. Kramer, A. (2014). The Law of Contract Damages. London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Publishing. Mackaay, E. (2013). Law and Economics for Civil Law Systems. Cheltenham, United Kingdom: Edward Elgar. McGregor, H. (2014). McGregor on Damages (19th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell. Peel, E. (2015). Treitel, The Law of Contract (14th ed.). London, United Kingdom: Sweet & Maxwell. Posner, R. A. (2011). Economic Analysis of Law (8th ed.). New York, NY: Aspen Publishers. Runnington, C., & Ballantine W. (1806). The History, Principles and Practice (Ancient and Modern) of the Legal Remedy by Ejectment and the Resulting Action for Mesne Profits (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: H. Butterworth. Simpson, A. W. B. (1975). A History of the Common Law of Contract: The Rise of the Action of Assumpsit. Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. Tettenborn, A., & Wilby QC, D. (2010). The Law of Damages (2nd ed.). London, United Kingdom: LexisNexis. Virgo, G. (2006). The Principles of the Law of Restitution (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Virgo, G. (2012). The Principles of Equity & Trusts. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. (二)論文集 Birks, P. (1998). Misnomer. In W. R. Cornish, R. Nolan, J. O’Sullivan & G. Virgo (Eds.), Restitution: Past, Present and Future (pp. 1-30). Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. Eastwood, S. (2003). Breach of Contract, Restitution for Wrongs, and Punishment: Comment. In A. Burrows & E. Peel (Eds.), Commercial Remedies: Current Issues and Problems (pp. 125-128). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Helms, T. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in German Law. In Ewoud H. & André J. (eds.) Disgorgement of Profits: Gain-Based Remedies throughout the World (pp. 219-230). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Langbein, J. H. (1998). The Later History of Restitution. In W. R. Cornish, R. Nolan, J. O’Sullivan & G. Virgo (Eds.), Restitution: Past, Present and Future (pp. 57-62). Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. McGregor, H. (1996). Restitutionary Damages. In P. Birks (Ed.), Wrongs and Remedies in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 203-216). Oxford, United Kingdom: Clarendon Press. McKendrick, E. (2003). Breach of Contract, Restitution for Wrongs, and Punishment. In A. Burrows & E. Peel (Eds.), Commercial Remedies: Current Issues and Problems (pp. 93-124). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Nomi, Y. (2015). Disgorgement of Profits in Japanese Law. In Ewoud H. & André J. (eds.) Disgorgement of Profits: Gain-Based Remedies throughout the World (pp. 429-444). Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Tettenborn, A. (1998). Misnomer: A Response to Professor Birks. In W. R. Cornish, R. Nolan, J. O’Sullivan & G. Virgo (Eds.), Restitution: Past, Present and Future (pp. 31-36). Oxford, United Kingdom: Hart Publishing. (三)期刊論文 Doyle, S., & Wright, D. (2001). Restitutionary Damages: The Unnecessary Remedy. Melbourne University Law Review, 25(1), 1-23. Eisenberg, M. A. (2006). The Disgorgement Interest in Contract Law. Michigan Law Review, 105, 559-602. Fridman, G. H. L. (1955). Waiver of Tort. The Modern Law Review, 18(1), 1-7. Friedmann, D. (1980). Restitution of Benefits Obtained through the Appropriation of Property or the Commission of a Wrong. Columbia Law Review, 80(3), 504-558. Givati, Y. (2018). Over-Reliance under Contractual Disgorgement. American Law and Economics Review, 20(1), 82-104. Grantham, R. B., & Rickett, C. E. F. (2003). Disgorgement for Unjust Enrichment. Cambridge Law Journal, 62, 159-180. Jackman, I. M. (1989). Restitution for Wrongs. Cambridge Law Journal, 48, 302-321. Jaffey, P. (2000). Disgorgement for Breach of Contract. Restitution Law Review, 8, 578-587. Khouri, N. C. Z. (2002). Efficient Breach Theory in the Law of Contract: An Analysis, Auckland University Law Review, 9, 739-763. Martin, J. M. (2012). Waiver of Tort: An Historical and Practical Survey. Canadian Business Law Journal, 52, 473-551. McCamus, J. D. (2003). Disgorgement for Breach of Contract: A Comparative Perspective. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 36, 943-974. McCamus, J. D. (2014). Waiver of Tort: Is there a Limiting Principle. Canadian Business Law Journal, 55, 333-364. Mclnnes, M. (2000). Disgorgement for Wrongs: An Experiment in Alignment. Restitution Law Review, 8(4), 516-546. Patterson, E. W. (1936). The Scope of Restitution and Unjust Enrichment. Missouri Law Review, 1(3), 223-236. Roberts, C. L. (2009). Restitutionary Disgorgement as a Moral Compass for Breach of Contract. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 77, 991-1026. Roberts, C. L. (2016). Supreme Disgorgement. Florida Law Review, 68, 1413-1440. Sage, N. W. (2015). Disgorgement: from Property to contract. LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers, No. 18/2015. Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2661638 Scott, R. E. (2015). Contract Design and the Shading Problem. Marquette Law Review, 99(1), 1-38. Smith, L. D. (1994). Disgorgement of the Profits of Breach of Contract: Property, Contract and Efficient Breach. Canadian Business Law Journal, 24, 121-140. Temple, A. (2008). Disgorgement Damages for Breach of Contract. The Denning Law Journal, 20, 87-110. Weinrib, E. J. (2003). Punishment and Disgorgement as Contract Remedies. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 78(1) 55-103. Worthington, S. (1999). Reconsidering Disgorgement for Wrongs. Modern Law Review, 62(2), 218-240. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/73295 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 違約救濟向來著重於填補債權人之財產損害,但當債務人因違約獲得利益時,債權人得否不請求損害賠償,反而向債務人請求歸入該利益?我國文獻上未見相關討論,而英美法在「損害賠償不足」時允許債權人主張利益歸入做為補充性救濟手段。
具體而言,當契約標的屬於「不可在市場上以相當費用取得替代」之物或行為時,債權人不能透過損害賠償處於「如同契約被履行一般」之狀態,因而必須剝奪獲利根絕債務人違約之動機。此外,被剝奪之利益必須與違約行為有直接因果關係,利用違約機會獲得之利益不包括在內。最後,雖然債權人不必證明債務人刻意違約獲利,但債務人得抗辯自己不具主觀惡性而免除歸入利益之責。 違約利益歸入救濟之功能與目的在於預防、懲罰違約以保護債權人之履行利益,避免債務人不當利得,同時確保契約制度之實用性。本文認為,前開功能亦為我國所應追求之目標,故應可參考比較法之經驗設計一套違約利益歸入制度。然而我國法既無一貫的利益歸入理論,在違約救濟體系中亦無適當的請求權基礎。 本文認為,在調整構成要件及法律效果之後,不當得利、違約賠償以及類推適用代償請求權均有潛力作為違約利益歸入之請求權基礎,惟其影響可能不僅及於違約案件,具體的影響評估仍有待未來學說發展。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Remedy for breach of contracts traditionally focuses on damages, which compensate the creditor in order to redress the loss having been suffered. However, if the debtor profits from the breach, could the creditor claim to disgorge the gains which is not conferred by the creditor, instead of claiming compensatory damages? There are no relevant authorities in Taiwan while many in Anglo-American law. The creditor is awarded disgorgement when compensatory damages is inadequate.
Specifically speaking, three elements justifies disgorgement. First, the subject matter of contract should be “not substitutable”, which means it is nearly impossible for the creditor to buy the same kind of subject matter in the market. By depriving the gains, the responsibility to disgorge reduces the debtor’s motivation to breach and thus ensures the creditor’s performance interest. Secondly, the gains should be directly attributable to the breach. This element is meant to exclude the cases where the breach simply gives the debtor the opportunity to profit. Third, although the credit need not prove that the debtor deliberately breach the contract, the debtor may prove the opposite to free from disgorgement. Deterrent rationale and retributive rationale of disgorgement protects the creditor’s performance interest and prevent unjust enrichment. In the meantime, disgorgement gives contracts sufficient institutional protection. These functions are also worth pursuing in Taiwan contract law. Therefore, I advocate that a similar system should be established in Taiwan. In my opinion, potential institutions are unjust enrichment, damages for breach of contract, and the analogy of substitute claim in Taiwan Civil Code. However, this paper mainly focuses on the necessity and legitimacy of disgorgement in Taiwan. The influence of the amendment needs further discussion. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T07:26:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-108-R05a21047-1.pdf: 3813584 bytes, checksum: f77d56bbf81b44e5f255642f10e36487 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 問題意識與議題設定 1
第一節 源起 1 第二節 研究方法 3 第三節 研究範圍 4 第四節 論文架構 23 第二章 英美法上適用歸入救濟之案例類型:侵權與違反衡平 25 第一節 民事違法行為 25 第二節 侵權行為之財產權侵害案型 33 第三節 違反衡平之忠實(fiduciary)義務違反案型 55 第三章 英美法上適用歸入救濟之案例類型:違約 63 第一節 違約歸入問題之發展歷程 63 第二節 利益歸入之目的 82 第三節 允許歸入利益之案型 87 第四節 效率論的質疑與回應 108 第四章 我國違約利益歸入救濟相關制度之檢討 117 第一節 利益歸還制度之實定法考察 117 第二節 違約賠償與代償請求權 130 第三節 本文見解 143 第五章 結論 163 參考文獻 167 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 英美法違約利益歸入救濟之研究 | zh_TW |
dc.title | On Disgorgement for Breach of Contracts in Anglo-American Law | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 107-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 陳自強,向明恩 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 債務不履行,歸入,不當得利,損害賠償,代償請求, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | wrong,disgorge,unjust enrichment,damages,substitute claim, | en |
dc.relation.page | 172 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201901038 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2019-06-25 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 法律學系 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-108-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 3.72 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。