摘要： 《合同法》第122条旨在赋予受害人选择权以强化其利益保护，理论上可适用一切违反合同义务、并构成侵权的场合。竞合的违约行为类型通常限于加害给付、违反保护义务、恶意欺诈型给付以及违反后合同义务，竞合的侵权行为通常限于造成绝对权损害的侵害行为。竞合效果为“请求权相互影响说”，但实践中存在异化现象，即“择一消灭”模式被广泛应用，但此模式在实体法和诉讼法上均无法寻得依据。我国民事诉讼法采“旧诉讼标的理论”，在此背景下，应在坚持“请求权相互影响说”的基础上通过修改《合同法》第122条及其相关司法解释，完善责任竞合规则，以真正实现强化受害人保护的原初立法宗旨。

关键词: 责任竞合, 违约, 侵权, 请求权竞合, 诉讼标的

Abstract: Article 122 of the Contract Law aims to give victims the option of claims, in order to strengthen the protection of the interests of victims.In theory, the obligation to apply all types of contracts is violated and constitutes an infringement.The types of non-compliance breaches are usually limited to injurious payments, violations of protection obligations, malicious fraudulent payments, and breach of contractual obligations.Coincident infringements are generally limited to infringements that cause damage.The interpretation of the effect of competition and cooperation is“the mutual influence of claims.”However, there is a phenomenon of alienation in practice.The“selective elimination”model is widely used.This model cannot find a basis in both substantive law and procedural law.In this context, our national lawsuit adopts the“old litigation subject theory”.Therefore, we should improve the rules of responsibilities' concurrence by modifying Article 122 of the Contract Law and its related judicial interpretations on the basis of insisting on the“reciprocal influence of claims”, in order to really realize the original legislative purpose of protecting the interests of the victim.

Key words: Concurrence of Responsibilities, Breach of Contract, Tort, Concurrence of Claims, Object of Action