论文部分内容阅读
法定解除制度赋予合同当事人适当的退出机制,对于结束目的不能实现或者已无履行意义的合同具有积极意义。较富争议的是违约方可否主张解除合同,合同法第94条规定模糊,依文义解释,通说认为,一方违约时违约方不享有解除权。“合同僵局”的出现凸显了我国合同解除制度的不完善,有观点认为应借鉴英美法系“效率违约”原则,但“效率违约”的严格条件限制使其无法有效适用于违约方主张解除权的全部情形。从规范内在逻辑的角度出发,可以发现从严格责任归责原则出发对违约方解除权应予否定,对于合同目的无法实现与违约行为之间的关系预设妨碍了部分目的不能实现情形下的救济,对合同解除权性质的界定也影响了救济模式的选择,可以认为,“合同僵局”的出现是合同法系统性内在冲突的必然结果。对此,可以考虑通过立法赋予违约方形成诉权,在违约方主张的合同解除纠纷中考察违约方主观过错,对合同目的及其不能实现做出更全面的考察,在合同解除纠纷中赋予非经济价值以必要权重,尤其是人的自由及权利之保护。
The statutory dissolution system gives the contract parties an appropriate exit mechanism for the end of the contract can not be achieved or has no meaningful meaning of the contract has a positive meaning. More controversial is whether the defaulting party can rescind the contract. Article 94 of the Contract Law provides for ambiguity. According to the interpretation of the semantic meaning, it is generally accepted that the defaulting party does not enjoy the right of cancellation when one party defaults. The appearance of “contract impasse” highlights the imperfection of our country’s contract rescission system. Some people think that we should draw lessons from the Anglo-American law “principle of efficiency breach ”, but the strict conditions of “efficiency breach ” make it unable to effectively apply The defaulting party claims the right to terminate all the circumstances. From the point of view of regulating internal logic, we can find out that denying the right of breach of contract to the defaulting party should be denied from the principle of imputation of strict liability, and the relationship between the unrealized purpose of contract and the breach of contract can prevent the relief of partial purpose from being realized , The definition of the nature of the right to terminate the contract also affects the choice of remedy model. It can be concluded that the emergence of the “contract impasse” is the inevitable result of the systemic internal conflicts in the law of contract. In this regard, we can consider giving the defaulting party a right to form a lawsuit through legislation, examining the subjective fault of the defaulting party in the contract dissolution dispute that the defaulting party claims, making a more comprehensive investigation of the purpose of the contract and its unfeasibility, and giving non-economic benefits to the dismantling of the contract The value is protected by necessary weights, especially human liberties and rights.