Whether,and how,to rescind the right of one party(the non-breaching party)to rescind a contract in case of an obviously minor breach by the other party(the breaching party)is a recurring topic in the field of contract...Whether,and how,to rescind the right of one party(the non-breaching party)to rescind a contract in case of an obviously minor breach by the other party(the breaching party)is a recurring topic in the field of contract law.The Minutes of the Ninth Work Conference of the Courts Nationwide on Civil and Commercial Trial(the Minutes of the Ninth Work Conference)stipulates that whether a contract shall be rescinded depends on whether a breach is obviously minor and affects the fulfillment of the contract purposes expected by the non-breaching party.In juridical practice,however,there are no clear criteria to define what constitutes obviously minor breaches,and the factors considered in such cases are often inadequate to allow for a fully considered decision.By analyzing Article 55 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of Contracts of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(Draft for Comments)and reviewing the previous juridical practices,we present our conclusions regarding the conditions and factors that should be considered when restricting the right of rescission in cases of obviously minor breaches with a view to unifying the judicial judgment criteria by differentiating the type of breaches.展开更多
适用于欺诈性买卖合同的撤销权规则出现了错误。这个规则认为如果合同被撤销,那么转移财产权的方式也将被撤销。但是财产权转移的方式不仅限于合同,交付就是另一种方式。尽管被欺诈的出卖人有权撤销买卖合同,但这并不附带回复财产权的...适用于欺诈性买卖合同的撤销权规则出现了错误。这个规则认为如果合同被撤销,那么转移财产权的方式也将被撤销。但是财产权转移的方式不仅限于合同,交付就是另一种方式。尽管被欺诈的出卖人有权撤销买卖合同,但这并不附带回复财产权的功能。此立场也适用于合同自始即属无效的情形。如果买受人破产,被欺诈的出卖人也只能成为无担保债权人。对"财产权可以因合同撤销而回复"这一理论的历史考察揭示了它来自于帕克勋爵在Load v Green案的创造。但此项创造的依据,Parker v Patrick案,其实恰恰是支持抽象原则的先例。与普通法上基于不当得利或不法行为产生的其他权利相比,这种财产性权利也显得非常另类。基于买受人破产的情形对法律赋予此种权利的正当性证成也不能成立。展开更多
文摘Whether,and how,to rescind the right of one party(the non-breaching party)to rescind a contract in case of an obviously minor breach by the other party(the breaching party)is a recurring topic in the field of contract law.The Minutes of the Ninth Work Conference of the Courts Nationwide on Civil and Commercial Trial(the Minutes of the Ninth Work Conference)stipulates that whether a contract shall be rescinded depends on whether a breach is obviously minor and affects the fulfillment of the contract purposes expected by the non-breaching party.In juridical practice,however,there are no clear criteria to define what constitutes obviously minor breaches,and the factors considered in such cases are often inadequate to allow for a fully considered decision.By analyzing Article 55 of the Judicial Interpretation of the General Provisions of Contracts of the Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China(Draft for Comments)and reviewing the previous juridical practices,we present our conclusions regarding the conditions and factors that should be considered when restricting the right of rescission in cases of obviously minor breaches with a view to unifying the judicial judgment criteria by differentiating the type of breaches.
文摘适用于欺诈性买卖合同的撤销权规则出现了错误。这个规则认为如果合同被撤销,那么转移财产权的方式也将被撤销。但是财产权转移的方式不仅限于合同,交付就是另一种方式。尽管被欺诈的出卖人有权撤销买卖合同,但这并不附带回复财产权的功能。此立场也适用于合同自始即属无效的情形。如果买受人破产,被欺诈的出卖人也只能成为无担保债权人。对"财产权可以因合同撤销而回复"这一理论的历史考察揭示了它来自于帕克勋爵在Load v Green案的创造。但此项创造的依据,Parker v Patrick案,其实恰恰是支持抽象原则的先例。与普通法上基于不当得利或不法行为产生的其他权利相比,这种财产性权利也显得非常另类。基于买受人破产的情形对法律赋予此种权利的正当性证成也不能成立。
