论文部分内容阅读
预约合同没有规定在在我国法律中,以前只存在学理之中,直到2003年最高法颁布的《商品房买卖合同司法解释》中,才第一次对预约合同进行了规定,也对“预约合同违约行为是承担承担责任还是缔约过失责任的问题,最高法院的司法解释是明确的,但一般来说,对预约合同的司法解释规定太小,只有三条,由于许多问题没有做出明确的规定,在司法实践中存在诸多争议,各地法院的判断标准是不同的,在现有法律规定不能满足司法实践的需要。笔者结合司法实践中遇到的案例,对其中争议的问题进行研究,希望能为立法者提供一点建议。
Appointment contract does not provide for the law in our country, before there is only the theory, until 2003, the Supreme Court promulgated the ”judicial interpretation of commercial sales contract,“ the first time for the booking contract, but also the ”booking contract However, the judicial interpretation of the Supreme Court is clear. However, in general, there are only three provisions on the judicial interpretation of appointment contracts. Since many issues are not clearly stipulated, There are many controversies in judicial practice, and the judgments of different courts in different places are different, which can not meet the need of judicial practice in the existing laws.In the case of the judicial practice, the author studies the controversial issues in the hope of being Legislators provide some advice.