专业团队

很多时候我们在生活中都会与他人订立合同，合同是双方达成共识而书写的一种协议，它的目的在于保障当事人双方的权益。那么，如果因欺诈订立的合同如何处理呢?

因欺诈、胁迫订立的合同应分为两类，一类是一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段订立的合同损害国家利益，应作为无效合同，另一类是一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段订立的合同并没有损害国家利益，只是损害了集体或第三人的利益，对这类合同应按可撤销合同处理。将其按可撤销合同处理，原因在于：

(1)能够充分尊重被欺诈方的意愿，充分体现了民法的自愿原则。诚然，欺诈是一种违法行为，但因欺诈而订立的合同，主要是意思表示不真实的合同，而意思表示不真实，局外人往往难以判定，如果被欺诈人不提出受到欺诈，法院和仲裁机关往往难以主动干预。

(2)尽管某些欺诈行为可能造成了对被欺诈人的损失，但损失可能是轻微的，受害人可能仍然认为合同对其是有利的，并愿意接受合同的拘束。例如，受害人希望得到合同规定的标的物，则只能根据有效的合同请求欺诈行为人按照合同规定的质量交付标的物，从而使其订约目的得以实现。如果合同被宣告无效，受害人便不能提出这种要求。

(3)尤其应当看到，在许多情况下，责令欺诈行为人承担违约责任，较之于责令欺诈行为人承担合同被宣告无效后的责任，对受害人更为有利。例如违约责任形式包括违约金、赔偿损失、定金责任等，赔偿损失也可以包括约定的赔偿损失，以及对期待利益的赔偿。

而在合同被宣告无效的情况下，受害人不能要求欺诈行为人承担基于有效合同存在的违约金责任、约定赔偿损失责任、对期待利益的赔偿责任、定金的双倍返还责任等等。如果将因欺诈而订立的合同均作为无效合同对待，则法院和仲裁机关可不考虑当事人是否请求合同无效，而应主动宣告合同无效，从而使受害人丧失了选择对其有利的补救方式的权利，这对于受害人是极为不利的。正是因为这些原因，我国《合同法》修改了《民法通则》第58条的规定。根据《合同法》第54条，一方以欺诈、胁迫的手段或者乘人之危，使对方在违背真实意思的情况下订立的合同，受欺诈方有权请求人民法院或仲裁机构变更或者撤销。这就是说，对此类合同，受害人如认为合同继续有效对其有利，可要求变更合同，如认为违约责任的适用对其更为有利，可要求在确认合同有效的情况下，责令欺诈行为人承担违约责任;如果认为合同继续有效对其不利，可请求法院和仲裁机关撤销该合同，在合同被撤销以后，将发生合同被宣告无效后的同样的后果。总之，合同法将此类合同作为可撤销合同给予了受害人更多的选择机会，这对于保护受害人是极为有利的。

欺诈与显失公平是不同的。一方故意欺骗他人，使他人陷入错误并订立某种合同，也可能会造成显失公平的后果，因为一方欺诈他人通常都会使欺诈方获得利益，也可能使受欺诈方遭受损失。但欺诈与显失公平显然不同。一方面，欺诈是一方故意制造假象并使对方陷入错误;而在显失公平的情况下只是一方利用了对方的轻率和无经验等，并没有欺骗他人。另一方面，在欺诈的情况下，受害人遭受损害完全是受欺诈的结果，受害人在主观上并没有选择自己行为的自由;而在显失公平的情况下，受害人在主观上具有一定的选择自己行为的自由，受害人因自己的轻率和无经验等而与对方订立合同，在许多情况下其本身是有过错的。

Many times in our daily lives, we enter into contracts with others. Contracts are agreements written by both parties to reach a consensus, with the aim of protecting the rights and interests of both parties. So, what should be done if a contract is entered into due to fraud?

Contracts concluded due to fraud or coercion should be divided into two categories. One type is contracts concluded by one party through fraudulent or coercive means that harm national interests and should be considered invalid. The other type is contracts concluded by one party through fraudulent or coercive means that do not harm national interests, but only harm the interests of the collective or third parties. Such contracts should be treated as revocable contracts. Treat it as a revocable contract because:

(1) Being able to fully respect the will of the defrauded party fully reflects the voluntary principle of civil law. Undoubtedly, fraud is an illegal act, but contracts concluded due to fraud mainly involve contracts with untrue expressions of intention, which are often difficult for outsiders to determine. If the fraudster does not claim to be defrauded, courts and arbitration agencies often find it difficult to intervene proactively.

(2) Although certain fraudulent activities may cause losses to the victim, the losses may be minor, and the victim may still consider the contract to be beneficial and willing to accept its constraints. For example, if the victim wishes to obtain the subject matter specified in the contract, they can only request the fraudster to deliver the subject matter according to the quality specified in the contract based on a valid contract, in order to achieve their contractual purpose. If the contract is declared invalid, the victim cannot make such a claim.

(3) It should be noted that in many cases, ordering the fraudster to assume liability for breach of contract is more advantageous for the victim than ordering the fraudster to assume responsibility after the contract is declared invalid. For example, the forms of liability for breach of contract include liquidated damages, compensation for losses, deposit liability, etc. Compensation for losses can also include agreed compensation losses and compensation for expected benefits.

In the case where the contract is declared invalid, the victim cannot demand that the fraudster bear the liability for breach of contract damages based on the existence of a valid contract, the agreed liability for compensation for losses, the liability for compensation for expected benefits, the liability for double return of deposit, and so on. If contracts concluded due to fraud are treated as invalid contracts, courts and arbitration authorities may not consider whether the parties request the contract to be invalid, but should proactively declare the contract invalid, thereby depriving the victim of the right to choose a remedy that is beneficial to them, which is extremely detrimental to the victim. It is precisely for these reasons that China's Contract Law has amended Article 58 of the General Principles of Civil Law. According to Article 54 of the Contract Law, if one party uses fraudulent or coercive means or takes advantage of the other party's situation to enter into a contract that goes against their true intentions, the fraudster has the right to request the people's court or arbitration institution to modify or revoke it. That is to say, for such contracts, if the victim believes that the continued validity of the contract is beneficial to them, they can request a modification of the contract. If they believe that the application of breach of contract liability is more favorable to them, they can demand that, after confirming the validity of the contract, the fraudster be ordered to bear the breach of contract liability; If it is deemed that the continued validity of the contract is detrimental to it, the court and arbitration authority may request the revocation of the contract. After the contract is revoked, the same consequences will occur as if the contract had been declared invalid. In short, the Contract Law treats such contracts as revocable contracts, providing victims with more opportunities to choose, which is extremely beneficial for protecting victims.

Fraud and blatant unfairness are different. One party intentionally deceives others, causing them to make mistakes and enter into a certain contract, which may also result in unfair consequences, as one party's fraud often benefits the fraudster and may also cause losses to the fraudster. But fraud and blatant unfairness are clearly different. On the one hand, fraud is when one party deliberately creates a false impression and causes the other party to fall into error; In cases of obvious unfairness, one party only took advantage of the other party's recklessness and lack of experience, without deceiving others. On the other hand, in cases of fraud, the damage suffered by the victim is entirely the result of the fraud, and the victim does not have the freedom to choose their own behavior subjectively; In cases of obvious unfairness, the victim has a certain degree of subjective freedom to choose their own behavior. The victim enters into a contract with the other party due to their own recklessness and lack of experience, and in many cases, they themselves are at fault