本文旨在探討侵權行為法上交易安全義務可資保護的客體是否漫無限制？是否應受民法第一八四條第一項前段保護客體的限制？除了傳統領域中，侵權行為法典型規範的客體，諸如生命權、健康權，所有權等絕對權以外，是否可及於人身自由權，智慧財產權？又開於向有爭議的債權、純粹經濟上損失是否亦在保護之列，尤值深入討論。本文集中大部份焦點於純粹經濟上損失之探討，分析歸納我國以及德國法上的實務見解、學說議論，進一步提出個人觀點，最後得出否定結論，期能為我國法院適用法律於類似案例時，提供比較法上的參考資料以及論理上的法理依據。

　　　　　The purpose of the essay is to argue whether the protected subjects of Verkehrspflichten in the law of tort are unlimited? Should they be restricted in those of § 184, first sentence of our Civil Code? Beside the protected subjects such as the right of life, health and property, do the protected subjects mentioned above include the right Of freedom and intellectual property? Furthermore, regarding the right of obligation and pure economic loss, should they, especially "pure economic loss", be included in the tier of protected subject by means of Verkehrspflichtn in tort law? The arguments of this essay focus mainly on the discussion of "pure economic loss", trying to synthesize and analyze the common academic thinking and the judicial opinion in Taiwan as well as in German. Finally, with negative conclusion to the query above, some personally opinions will be offered in order to provide as referent materials in comparative jurisprudence and as theoretical basis in judicial interpretation while the courts dealing with the analogous cases.