本校學位論文庫
CITYU Theses & Dissertations
論文詳情
蔡壯
呂冬娟
法學院
法學碩士學位課程(中文學制)
碩士
2020
論合同法定解除制度
On the Statutory Cancellation System of Contracts
合同法定解除 ; 違約解除合同 ; 非違約解除合同
Statutory Termination Of Contract ; Breach Of Contract ; Non-Default Termination Of Contract
《民法典》關於合同法定解除制度的規定在《合同法》的基礎上,對解除的主體、條件、規則、法律效果及典型合同解除等方面進行了完善,但仍然存在未區分違約解除與非違約解除、未明確違約方是否享有解除權、未明確被解除方異議期等漏洞與弊端。因違約解除合同與因不可抗力、情勢變更等非違約事由解除合同在解除主體、條件、規則及法律效果方面都存在重大不同,法律應當對二者有所區分。
合同法定解除的原因可以分為違約與非違約兩種。其中違約解除最為常見,目前在司法實踐中運用範圍也最為廣泛。非違約解除的適用條件較為嚴苛,實踐中適用相對較少。從現有規定來看,無論是違約解除合同,還是非違約解除合同,其解除合同最根本的原因在於合同目的不能實現。對於合同解除和履行不能的關係、違反附隨義務和從給付義務可否解除合同等問題,應當以合同目的能否實現作為根本判斷標準。履行不能只是導致合同目的無法實現的情形之一,違反從給付義務、附隨義務並非完全不能解除合同。
違約解除通常包括守約方與違約方解除兩類。守約方合同解除權主要適用《民法典》第563-566條的規定,守約方在違約方預期違約、遲延履行以及根本違約的情形下可以解除合同。守約方行使解除權可用通知或訴訟的方式,但對方接到守約方通知後提出異議的方式僅限於訴訟。合同解除後不具有溯及力,只是產生了法定的清算之債,因合同履行受有利益一方應當盡可能地返還已受領的給付,如已受領的給付不適宜返還或只能返還部分,受有利益一方應當採取補救措施,補救措施不足以彌補他方當事人所受損失時,受有利益一方還應當賠償損失。
違約方解除權目前在實務界及學術界存有爭論。比較法上可資借鑒的經驗有德國債務人拒絕履行模式與法國司法解除模式。結合我國《民法典》的內容及司法實踐,司法解除模式更為可取。違約方解除合同畢竟是契約嚴守原則的例外情形,實踐中在適用時應當嚴格把握適用條件,通過法院司法審查程式嚴格把控,既可以打破合同僵局,又能最大限度防止解除權被濫用。
非違約解除合同的主體、條件、法律效果等都與違約解除合同有所區別。就主體而言,不可抗力解除與情勢變更解除時只有因此受不利影響的一方才有權解除。非違約解除合同僅限於法律明確規定的不可抗力、情勢變更、任意解除等情形。非違約解除合同後的賠償損失僅限於為了返還已受領的給付而需賠償的損失,此時並不存在違約責任項下的賠償損失。
《民法典》現有規定主要是針對違約解除中的守約方解除合同的情形,不完全適用於違約方解除合同、非違約解除合同等情形。對於違約方解除合同、非違約解除合同的規則應當進行更為細緻、系統的規定。
The "Civil Code" provides for the statutory cancellation system Of contracts on the basis Of the "Contract Law", which improves the subject, conditions, rules, legal effects, and typical contract cancellation. However, there is still no distinction between breach Of contract cancellation and non-dissolution. Loopholes and drawbacks such as the termination Of the breach, the failure to clarify whether the breaching party has the right Of termination, and the failure to specify the objection period Of the terminated party. There are significant differences between the termination Of a contract due to breach Of contract and the termination Of a contract due to non-default reasons such as force majeure and change Of circumstances in terms Of the subject, conditions, rules and legal effects Of the termination, and the law should distinguish between the two.
The reasons for the statutory termination Of the contract can be divided into two types: breach Of contract and non-default. Among them, cancellation Of breach Of contract is the most common, and is currently the most widely used in judicial practice. The applicable conditions for non-default cancellation are more stringent, and they are relatively less applicable in practice. Judging from the existing regulations, whether it is to terminate the contract in breach Of contract or to terminate the contract in non-default, the most fundamental reason for the termination Of the contract is that the purpose Of the contract cannot be achieved. For issues such as the relationship between the termination Of the contract and the impossibility Of performance, the breach Of collateral obligations, and whether the contract can be terminated from the obligation to pay, etc., the fundamental judgment standard should be whether the purpose Of the contract can be achieved. Performance cannot be just one Of the circumstances that make the purpose Of the contract impossible to achieve, and breach Of the obligation to pay and collateral obligations does not mean that the contract cannot be terminated completely.
Relief Of breach usually includes two types: the observant party and the breaching party. The right to terminate the contract Of the observant party mainly applies to the provisions Of Articles 563-566 Of the Civil Code. The observant party can terminate the contract in the event Of a breach Of contract expected, delayed performance or fundamental breach Of the contract by the breaching party. The observant party can exercise the right Of termination by notice or litigation, but the way that the other party raises objections after receiving the observant notice is limited to litigation. After the contract is terminated, there is no retrospective effect, but a statutory liquidation debt is generated. The party benefiting from the performance Of the contract should return the received benefits as much as possible. If the received benefits are not suitable to be returned or can only be partially refunded , The beneficial party shall take remedial measures, and when the remedial measures are not sufficient to make up for the losses suffered by the other party, the beneficial party shall also compensate for the losses.
The right to rescind the breaching party is currently controversial in the field Of practice and academic circles. Experiences that can be used for reference in comparative law include the German debtor’s refusal to perform model and the French judicial dissolution model. Combining with the content and judicial practice Of my country's "Civil Code", the judicial dismissal model is more preferable. After all, the termination Of the contract by the breaching party is an exception to the principle Of strict adherence to the contract. In practice, the applicable conditions should be strictly controlled when applying, and the judicial review procedures Of the court should be strictly controlled. This can break the contract deadlock and prevent the abuse Of the right Of termination to the greatest extent.
The subject, conditions, and legal effects Of non-default termination Of the contract are different from those Of the breach Of contract termination. As far as the subject is concerned, when the force majeure is lifted and the situation change is lifted, only the party adversely affected by this has the right to lift it. Non-default termination Of a contract is limited to circumstances such as force majeure, change Of circumstances, and arbitrary termination as clearly defined by the law. Compensation losses after the non-default termination Of the contract are limited to the losses that need to be compensated in order to return the benefits that have been received. At this time, there is no compensation loss under the liability for breach Of contract.
The existing provisions Of the "Civil Code" are mainly aimed at the situation where the observant party terminates the contract in the termination Of the breach Of contract, and is not fully applicable to the termination Of the contract by the breaching party and the termination Of the contract without breach Of contract. The rules for the breaching party to terminate the contract and for non-default termination Of the contract should be more detailed and systematic.
2021
中文
43
致 謝​I
摘 要​II
Abstract​Ⅳ
第一章 緒論​1
1.1《民法典》對合同法定解除制度的完善​1
1.1.1完善合同法定解除的主體​1
1.1.2完善合同法定解除的條件​2
1.1.3完善合同法定解除權的行使規則​2
1.1.4完善合同法定解除的法律效果​3
1.1.5完善典型合同解除規則​4
1.2《民法典》中合同法定解除規定的不足​4
第二章 合同法定解除的原因​6
2.1原因一:違約​6
2.2原因二:非違約​7
2.3根本原因:合同目的不能實現​8
2.3.1現有規定的共通之處​8
2.3.2履行不能與合同目的不能實現的關係​9
2.3.3附隨義務與從給付義務違反導致合同解除​10
第三章 違約解除合同​11
3.1現行法關於違約解除的規定​11
3.2違約解除的實務爭議​12
3.3違約解除的理論爭議​13
3.3.1守約方合同解除權​13
3.3.2違約方合同解除權​17
3.4比較法上的經驗​19
3.5違約解除的立法建議​20
第四章 非違約解除合同​24
4.1現行法關於非違約解除的規定​24
4.2非違約解除的實務爭議​25
4.3非違約解除的理論爭議​26
4.3.1非違約解除合同的主體​26
4.3.2非違約解除合同的條件​29
4.3.3非違約解除合同的行使規則​30
4.3.4非違約解除合同的法律效果​33
4.4比較法上的經驗​34
4.5非違約解除的立法建議​36
4.5.1解除權的共性規範​36
4.5.2違約解除與非違約解除的區分​36
第五章 結論​38
參考文獻​39
作者簡歷​43
1.王利明(2018)。合同編解除制度的完善。法學雜誌,39(03),18-25。
2.王利明(2020)。民法典合同編通則中的重大疑難問題研究。雲南社會科學,(01),77-94+186-187。
3.王利明(2020)。論合同僵局中違約方申請解約。法學評論,38(01),26-38。
4.王春梅(2018)。解除合同:違約救濟的功能分析。學術交流,(06),77-82。
5.朱虎(2020)。分合之間:民法典中的合同任意解除權。中外法學,32(04),1018-1041。
6.朱虎(2020)。解除權的行使和行使效果。比較法研究,(05),93-108。
7.仲偉珩(2020)。有償委託合同任意解除權的法律適用問題研究。法律適用,(17),22-33。
8.李政輝(2006)。國際視野下的合同法定解除原因體系。浙江學刊,(02),165-170。
9.呂雙全(2019)。情事變更原則法律效果的教義學構造。法學,(11),40-53。
10.杜景林(2020)。合同解除的體系建構。法商研究,37(03),84-98。
11.邱波、徐卓斌(2020)。違約方解除權之司法認定。法律適用,(12),114-125。
12.馬春元(2010)。違約方解除權的法理分析和現狀評述。南都學壇,(5),93-95。
13.孫良國(2016)。違約方的合同解除權及其界限。當代法學,30(05),46-58。
14.高豐美、丁廣宇(2019)。合同解除權行使“合理期限”之司法認定——基於36份裁判文書的分析。法律適用,(22),87-100。
15.時明濤(2020)。違約方合同解除權質疑與替代性框架的構建——兼評《民法典》第580條。煙臺大學學報(哲學社會科學版),33(05),21-34。
16.崔建遠(2005)。解除權問題的疑問與釋答(上篇)。政治與法律,(03),37-41。
17.崔建遠(2005)。解除權問題的疑問與釋答(下篇)。政治與法律,(04),42-52。
18.崔建遠(2011)。合同一般法定解除條件探微。法律科學(西北政法大學學報),29(06),121-128。
19.崔建遠(2015)。論合同目的及其不能實現。吉林大學社會科學學報,55(03),40-50+172。
20.崔建遠(2018)。完善合同解除制度的立法建議。武漢大學學報(哲學社會科學版),71(02),83-90。
21.崔建遠(2019)。不可抗力條款及其解釋。環球法律評論,41(01),48-57。
22.張衛東(2009)。合同法定解除的法律分析。中國經貿導刊,(13),63-64。
23.梁慧星(2019)。關於民法典分則草案的若干問題。法治研究,(04),3-16。
24.許中緣、耿真、雷豔平(2015)。法釋義學視角下合同法定解除的損害賠償。中南大學學報(社會科學版),21(01),73-80。
25.張素華、楊孝通(2020)。也論違約方申請合同解除權兼評《民法典》第580條第2款。河北法學,38(09),15-31。
26.路成華、穀昔偉(2020)。交易僵局中違約方司法解除請求權的證立及限度——基於租賃合同典型案例的分析。法律適用,(10),39-51。
27.趙文傑(2020)。論法定解除權的內外體系——以《民法典》第563條第1款中“合同目的不能實現”為切入點。華東政法大學學報, 23(03),126-137。
28.蔡睿(2019)。吸收還是摒棄:違約方合同解除權之反思——基於相關裁判案例的實證研究。現代法學,41(03),152-168。
29.劉凱湘(2020)。民法典合同解除制度評析與完善建議。清華法學,4(03),152-178。
30.劉承韙、李夢佳(2020)。論民法典合同解除權消滅規則——《民法典》合同編第五百六十四條評注。北京聯合大學學報(人文社會科學版),18(03),64-70。
31.劉承韙(2020)。論違約方解除合同規則寫入民法典之必要與可行。中國政法大學學報,(03),37-46+206-207。
32.劉承韙、許中緣、張金海(2019)。“民法典合同編(草案)二審稿修改”筆談。法治研究,(03),21-39。
33.韓世遠(2014)。不可抗力、情事變更與合同解除。法律適用,(11),61-65。
34.韓世遠(2020)。繼續性合同的解除:違約方解除抑或重大事由解除。中外法學,32(01),104-127。
35.王利明(1996)。違約責任論。北京:中國政法大學出版社。
36.《民法典立法背景與觀點全集》編寫組編(2020)。民法典立法背景與觀點全集。北京:法律出版社。
37.崔建遠(2016)。合同法。北京:北京大學出版社。
38.黃薇主編(2020)。中華人民共和國民法典合同編解讀(上冊)。北京:中國法制出版社。
39.黃薇主編(2020)。中華人民共和國民法典合同編釋義。北京:法律出版社。
40.最高人民法院民法典貫徹實施工作領導小組主編(2020)。中華人民共和國民法典合同編理解與適用(2)。北京:人民法院出版社。
41.餘延滿(1999)。合同法原論。武漢大學出版社。
42.韓世遠(2018)。合同法總論(第4版)。北京:法律出版社。
43.李曉鈺(2014)。合同解除制度研究。未出版博士論文,西南政法大學,重慶。