摘要
最高人民法院发布的指导案例67号裁判要点认为,分期付款股权转让人解除合同的,不适用《合同法》第167条有关解除合同的规定,理由是分期付款股权转让合同不同于以消费为目的的分期付款买卖合同。该裁判理由与立法和司法实际不符。审判实践中,以生产经营为目的的分期付款买卖合同纠纷远多于以消费为目的的分期付款买卖合同纠纷。交付标的物后分期付款是分期付款买卖合同的本质属性,该指导案例未能根据这一属性分析所涉分期付款股权转让合同能否类推适用分期付款买卖合同的规定,同时混淆了《合同法》第94条规定的解除权与第167条规定的解除权之间的区别,将不能满足第94条规定的解除要件,阐释为不适用第167条的理由。事实上,股权转让合同对买卖合同有关规定的参照适用,与对合同法总则的适用是不矛盾的,该指导案例的裁判规则引人误解,殊值反思。
The ＂Key Points of Judgment＂ in Guiding Case No. 67 issued by the Su- preme People＇ s Court holds that the provision of Article 167 of the Chinese Contract Law is not applicable to the situation where the transferor may terminate a share-transfer contract with pay- ment by installments because such a contract is different from a sales contract with payment by installments for the purpose of consumption. This juridical reasoning is apparently inconsistent with the legislative and judicial practice in China. In judicial practice, there are far more dis- putes over sale contracts with payment by installments for the purpose of production and busi- ness operation than disputes over sale contracts with payment by installments for the purpose of consumption. The essence of a sales contract with payment by installments is that buyer makes payment by installments after receiving the subject matter. Guiding Case No. 67 fails to analyze on the basis of this essence the applicability by analogy of the provision of Article 167 of the Chinese Contract Law to share-transfer contracts with payment by installments and confuses the termination right and applicable conditions provided for in Article 94 of the Chinese Contract Law with those provided for in Article 167 of the Law. In fact, the application mutatis mutandis of relevant provisions on sales contract to share-transfer contracts is not inconsistent with the ap- plication of the general provisions of the Contract Law. The adjudicative rule in Guiding Case No. 67 is misleading and therefore needs rethinking.
出处
《环球法律评论》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第4期33-45,共13页
Global Law Review
基金
江苏省第四期"333工程"科研项目"公司纠纷案件裁判说理研究"(BRA2015335)的研究成果
