%0 Journal Article
%T 动机错误“可救济”之考量<br> The Consideration of “Remedy” of Motive Error
%A 窦丹玲
%J Dispute Settlement
%P 150-159
%@ 2379-3104
%D 2024
%I Hans Publishing
%R 10.12677/DS.2024.101022
%X “动机错误”是指“事实认识与实际不符”的风险负担问题，它的“不可撤消说”源自萨维尼和弗卢梅。但是，从比较法领域来看，如果动机错误不应由意思表示人独自承担责任或交易安全和相对人的信赖不值得保护的情况下，则应发生撤销意思表示的效力。由于我国法律对于动机错误的补救措施是极其慎重和严厉的，因此，在我国司法实务中将重大误解作为一种迂回的救济方式。本文拟以比较法视角对动机错误的可补责性进行研究，在梳理其规则的原则与例外的基础上，明确动机错误“可救济”的要件后，以“二元论”为基础吸收“一元论”为路径，对于“基于协议约定”以及“基于相对人诱发”的情形作出分析。最后得出结论，即应在特殊情形对表意人的动机错误予以救济。<br />
“Motivation error” refers to the risk burden problem that “the fact cognition does not match the reality”, and its “irrevocable theory” comes from Savini and Flumey. However, in the field of comparative law, the effect of revocation of the expression of intention should occur if the motive error should not be solely borne by the person expressing the intention or the security of the transaction and the trust of the counterpart is not worthy of protection. As the remedy of motive error in Chinese law is extremely prudent and severe, the major misunderstanding is regarded as a devious remedy in Chinese judicial practice. This paper intends to study the compensability of motivation error from the perspective of comparative law. On the basis of sorting out the principles and exceptions of its rules, it clarifies the elements of “remediable” motivation error, takes “dualism” as the basis, absorbs “monism” as the path, and analyzes the situations “based on agreement” and “induced by relative person”. Finally, it is concluded that the error of motivation of ideographers should be remedied under special circumstances.
%K 动机错误，可救济，构成要件<br> Motive Error
%K Remedy
%K Constituent Elements
%U http://www.hanspub.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=78814