摘要： 通说认为我国合同法上的前合同责任为过错责任，少数说认为应限制为故意责任，并例外承认无过失信赖责任。因我国合同法关于前合同责任的规定主要参考了《国际商事合同通则》和《欧洲合同法原则》，故合同法相关规定的解释应顾及此种法律继受因素。从法律继受过程及司法实践来看，《合同法》第42条第3项具有前合同责任一般条款的属性，其关于“违反诚实信用原则”的规定确立了前合同责任的一般归责标准。在与传统过错标准的衔接上，客观诚信观念与客观过失观念具有一致性，与主观过失观念亦能相容，无需在违反诚信或客观过失标准外另行承认无过失信赖责任的例外。

关键词: 前合同责任, 诚实信用原则, 客观过失, 信赖责任

Abstract: Most scholars think that pre-contractual-liability in our contract law is based on fault, but minority  thinks it should be limited to intention and non-fault liability exceptionally. The institution of pre-contractual liability in our contract law is drafted primarily referred to PICC, so interpretation of the related rules should take into account the legal reception elements. From the respect of legal reception and legal practice, the artide 42（3）is lonsidered as the general rule of pre-contractual liability, and“contrary to good faith” is the common standard of that liability. Objective good faith is linked up with the traditional criterion of fault liability in line with subjective good faith, and is compatible with subjective fault. The concept of bad faith in  PICC is undesignedly transformed into “malice” or“intention” in our contract law, it should not be recognized that it has material meaning in legislative policy. The reliance doctrine emphases the imputability of  contracting and objective fault is sufficient to protect the reliance of the other contracting party, so there is  no need to accept non-fault liability of reliance damages exceptionally.

Key words: Pre-contractual Liability, Principle of Good Faith, Objective Fault, Liability of Reliance Damages