摘要
《民法典》第580条第2款的违约方解除制度为合同僵局的破解提供了规范供给。相较于抗辩权,解除的法律效果更有利于合同僵局之解决,也更符合当事人对利益再平衡之期待。相较于直接赋予违约方解除权,违约方解除制度的实现以司法解除的方式为必要,并不蕴含形成诉权,是通知解除之例外。违约方解除与情势变更的适用情形在客观方面趋同,旨在解决履行不能与履行艰难下无法实际履行之问题,差异体现在对当事人主观过错程度要求不同,二者同属基于违约的法定解除之例外,故将其设置在“违约责任”一章并不妥当。违约方解除制度并不当然适用于金钱债务之场合,须对其条文进行目的解释以确保适用范围的周延性。违约方解除制度的要件体系须从权利成立和权利行使两个层面明确,且为保障当事人程序利益及合同僵局案件妥当处理,应配置当事人再交涉义务及法官释明义务规则。
The rule of discharge of contract by defaulting party established by the second paragraph of Article 580 of Civil Code in China has provided legal norms for solving contract deadlock.Compared with Counterargument Right,the legal effect of discharging contract is more conducive to the settlement of contract deadlock problem,and is more in line with the breaching party’s expectation of interest rebalancing.Compared with direct right of discharge,the rule of discharge of contract by defaulting party does not imply Gestaltungsklagerecht.Judicial termination is an essential discharge method,which is an exception to notification.The rules of discharge of contract by defaulting party and Rebus Sic Stantibus are objectively similar,both aiming to solve the failure and difficulties of performance.Their difference is reflected in the degree of subjective fault of the parties.So it is not appropriate to place the rule of discharge of contract by defaulting party as“Default Liability”.The rule can be applied to monetary debts by means of interpretation in a purposeful manner.The element system of the rule needs to be further specified from both aspects of right establishment and performance.In order to protect procedural interest and solve contract deadlock cases,procedural rules such as duty to renegotiate and judge’s elucidatory are necessary.
作者
王毅纯
刘廿一
WANG Yichun;LIU Nianyi
出处
《经贸法律评论》
2021年第5期65-82,共18页
Business and Economic Law Review
基金
国家重点研发计划“高质高效的审判支撑关键技术及装备研究”项目“虚假诉讼甄别预警技术研究”课题“虚假诉讼案件要素提取技术研究”任务(项目批准号:2018YFC0830301−03)。
关键词
合同僵局
违约方解除
情势变更
司法解除
再交涉义务
Contract Deadlock
Discharge by Defaulting Party
Rebus Sic Stantibus
Judicial Termination
Duty to Renegotiate
