法定解除权滥用的法律规制研究

发布时间：2018-03-06 06:15

本文选题：法定解除权　切入点：合同构成　出处：《安徽大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：从古罗马法时期,债就被视为“法锁”,债务人不履行契约债务时,债权人有权拘押债务人人身,因此合同缔结后不得任意解除。只是到了近代,随着西方“契约自由”理念的确立和发展,解除合同自由作为“契约自由”的主要内容而被自然的确定下来。合同自由原则是对罗马法“契约严守”精神的突破,作为一项基本原则贯穿于《合同法》的始终。合同解除制度由合同自由原则引申而来,其目的是追求一种高于“契约严守”的价值。它是对原有的契约的破坏,为了保护交易的安全性,我们必须对合同解除制度的适用加以严格的规定,否则则会滋生滥用的土壤。本文笔者分析了合同解除制度的基本原理和立法设置法定解除权的理论依据,从法定解除权本身所具有的基本性质中看到滋生滥用法定解除权的可能性。通过比较“合同责任”与“违约救济”两种关于法定解除权性质的观点,提出了法定解除权的权利属性应当是一种违约救济性的权利,是法律为了平衡三方利益而赋予一方当事人的一种权利。惩罚或者制裁是这种权利经过行使可能造成的后果,而不是这种权利本身所必然起到的一种作用。笔者对中国三部合同法以及国外一些国家的合同法进行比较研究,找出了我国合同法中关于法定解除权规定的不合理和缺漏的地方。比如：我国合同法关于法定解除权的规定过于概括,缺少细化的规定；对法定解除事由中一个很重要的内容——“合同目的”没有任何法条对它的定义加以界定；关于法定解除事由的兜底条款的规定容易在实践中造成法条使用的混乱；《合同法》对解除权行使程序的规定过于笼统,。本文的创新之处首先,在于提出了法定解除权的权利属性应当是一种违约救济性的权利,既继承了当今世界上多数国家认可的对于法定解除权的性质以“违约救济”代替“合同责任”的观点,又提出它是一种权利,这与以往文献研究结果不同。以往的文献多采用“救济路径”的说法。其次,在于提出在我国目前虽然没有明确提出采用“合同构成”的模式,但是从我国合同法整体来看已经倾向性地采用了“合同构成”的立法模式,在这一模式下,我们应当强调当事人的意思自治,强调意思自治并非意味着鼓励行使合同解除权。我们要始终贯彻保持合同的稳定性这一中心的理念,那么,如何在意思自治和限制行使合同解除权之间找到平衡点,这就要求我们在订立合同的时候要细化合同的条款,依据合同的内容来解决当事人之间的纠纷。既符合时代的潮流,也能够起到限制法定解除权滥用的作用。再次,笔者最后提出应当从经济效益出发重新认识法定解除权,运用成本核算理念来判断是否构成解除权的滥用。因为法律允许当事人行使解除权解除合同,这里面就含有一个对公平的衡量,那么如何衡量是否公平涉及到衡量标准的问题,笔者在这篇文章中提出运用经济学的成本核算理念来作为判断公平的标准,这也是本文的一个创新之处。因此,笔者对法定解除权进行研究的目的在于试图找到一些能够限制法定解除权滥用的方法,希望能够引起学者们对这一问题进行深入地探讨,避免实践中出现的因为滥用法定解除权而给一些当事人带来不公平的遭遇。
[Abstract]:In ancient Rome period, the debt was viewed as a "lock", the debtor does not fulfill the contract obligations, the creditor shall have the right to detain debtor, so the conclusion of the contract shall not be arbitrarily dismissed. But in modern times, with the establishment and development of the western concept of "freedom of contract", the termination of the contract freedom as the main content of "freedom of contract" was naturally determined. The principle of freedom of contract is the law of Rome "contract adherence to" the spirit of the breakthrough, as a basic principle of Contract Law > < throughout all the time. The termination of the contract system derived from the principle of contract freedom, its purpose is to pursue a higher "contract strictly" value. Is the destruction of the original contract, in order to protect the safety of transaction, we have strict rules for the termination of the contract system, otherwise it will breed abuse of soil. In this paper, the author analyzes the termination of the contract with According to the basic principle of the theory and legislation of the system set up the legal rescission right, see the possibility of breeding abuse of legal rescission right from the basic nature of the legal rescission right itself has. By comparing the "contract responsibility" and "remedies" two kinds of legal rescission right view of nature, proposed the property of legal rescission right shall is a kind of remedy of rights, is a kind of legal rights in order to balance the interests of the three parties and giving a party. This is the right of punishment or sanctions after exercise may be consequences, not the right itself is bound to be a function. The author conducts a comparative study of China three contract laws and some foreign countries of the contract law, the contract law of our country in the legal rescission right unreasonable regulations and omissions place. For example: the contract law of our country about legal relief The right of the provisions are too general, lack of detailed provisions on the statutory; a very important content in the subject - "the purpose of the contract rescission" no law to define its definition; Miscellaneous Provisions on legal rescission reasons easily in practice caused by the confusion of the law; < contract law > exercise the program of the right of cancellation is too general. The innovation of this paper is to put forward first, the property of legal rescission right shall be a breach of the relief of rights, not only inherited by most countries in the world today for the nature of legal rescission right to "remedies" instead of "contract responsibility", and it is a kind of right, which is different from the previous study results. The previous literature use the "relief path". Secondly, is put forward in our country at present although not explicitly put forward. With the formation of the contract "model, but from the whole contract law of our country have tended to adopt the legislative model of" contract ", in this mode, we should emphasize the autonomy of the parties, emphasizing the autonomy does not mean encouraging the exercise of the right to rescind the contract. We should always carry out maintaining the stability of the contract the central idea, then, how to exercise the right to terminate the contract to find a balance between autonomy and restriction, which requires us to refine the terms of the contract when the contract, according to the contents of the contract to solve the disputes between the parties. Not only conforms to the trend of the times, but also can limit the legal rescission right the role of abuse. Thirdly, the author proposes from the perspective of economic benefits should recognize the legal rescission right, using the idea of cost accounting to determine whether constitutes the abuse of right of rescission because. The law allows the parties to exercise the right to rescind the contract, which contains a fair measure, then how to measure the fairness criterion relates to the problems, the author puts forward the application of economic cost accounting concept in this article as the judgment standard of fair, it is an innovation in this paper. Therefore, the author research on legal rescission right is to try to find something to restrict the abuse of legal rescission right, hope can cause scholars in-depth discussion on this issue, to avoid arising in practice because of the abuse of the legal rescission right and give some parties to bring unfair suffering.

【学位授予单位】：安徽大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】