摘要： 《民法典合同编解释》第5条仅对合同订立中的第三人责任作出部分规定,仍待理论与实践的进一步共识。既有金融、会计以及证券交易等领域的司法实践基于专业侵权责任与代理人连带责任规则的类推适用两条脉络展开,仍需规范与理论的整合,以避免评价矛盾与责任的过度扩张。相较于形式上的定性或路径之争,实质的归责依据与要素在体系整合中更为关键:直接接触关系足以产生第三人对其提供信息或建议的注意义务,除非以合理方式作出保留;在当事人转递关系中,第三人责任受双方基础合同中义务与责任范围的约束,且应符合相对人范围可预期、信赖合理性等要求。第三人责任范围应遵循损害赔偿的一般原则,过失责任限于注意义务违反的范围内。第三人过失属独立评价的责任类型,而非基于对当事人责任的补充或连带。

关键词: 第三人过失, 侵权责任, 责任要素, 责任范围, 责任形态

Abstract: Article 5 of the new Judicial Interpretation of Contracts only partially specifies the pre-contractual liability of third parties, awaiting further consensus in theory and practice.Current judicial practices regarding finance, accounting, and securities mainly rely on two approaches: professional tort and analogy to the agent's joint liability rule.However, these approaches require legal and theoretical integration to avoid contradictory judgments and prevent excessive liability expansion.In comparison to formal disputes, the substantive grounds and elements for liability are more crucial in the integration process.Direct contact is sufficient to establish a third party's duty of care when providing information or advice unless personal reliance is reasonably excluded.In the context of the transmitting relationship, the third party's liability is bound by the scope and limitations of the foundational commission contract and should comply with requirements such as foreseeability and reasonableness of reliance.The scope of the third party's liability should adhere to the general principles of damages, and negligence liability should be confined within the duty of care.Third-party negligence constitutes an independently evaluated type of liability, rather than being supplementary or joint based on the liability of the contracting parties.

Key words: Third-Party Negligence, Tort Liability, Elements of Liability, Scope of Liability, Forms of Liability