预期违约制度的法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-03-27 15:15

本文选题：预期违约　切入点：信赖利益　出处：《苏州大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：预期违约制度是英美法系所特有的一项法律制度,它是为了避免当事人一方在合同有效成立后至履行期限届满前,不履行或不能履行合同的主要义务而建立起来的一项法律救济制度。我国的预期违约制度,既吸收了英美法系的预期违约制度又借鉴了大陆法系的不安抗辩权制度,在我国立法上属一大进步,弥补了我国合同法立法上的空白。但由于《合同法》仓促出台,在引入两大制度的同时,并没有将二者很好地对接和融合,致使在法律适用过程中造成重叠和冲突。笔者鉴于此,对我国的预期违约制度进行粗浅的研究。本文从预期违约制度的历史来源、概念特征,以及与不安抗辩权制度相比较的基础上,详尽地介绍了我国预期违约制度的法律现状,重点分析了其不完善的地方。我国预期违约制度中存在的不足之处,主要体现在：其一,《合同法》94条、108条设置不合理,缺乏系统性并且表述前后不一致；其二,预期违约制度存在适用范围认定不明确,与不安抗辩权相互冲突、相互矛盾；其三,法律救济规定不合理。针对这些不足之处,本文在结合他人已有观点的基础之上,从以下几个方面提出自己几点粗浅的建议与对策：第一,将预期违约制度相关的法律条文予以整合并进行统一表述；第二,明确预期违约制度的构成要件并适当扩大不安抗辩权的适用范围,将不安抗辩权纳入到预期违约制度当中；第三,用规范、统一的语言表述预期违约的救济方式；针对明示和默示两种不同的预期违约形态,用不同救济的方式分别规定；明示预期违约中增加预期违约方撤回权；明确预期违约损害赔偿的范围,根据三种不同情形分别确定损害赔偿的数额。
[Abstract]:The system of anticipatory breach of contract is a special legal system in Anglo-American law system, which is designed to avoid one of the parties from forming the contract effectively until the expiration of the period of performance. A system of legal remedies established by default or failure to perform the principal obligations of a contract. The system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country, which not only absorbs the system of anticipatory breach of contract of common law system, but also draws lessons from the system of uneasy defense right of civil law system, which is a great progress in legislation of our country. It has made up for the blank in the legislation of contract law of our country. However, due to the hasty introduction of the contract Law, the two systems have not been well connected and merged while the two systems have been introduced. In view of this, the author makes a brief study on the system of anticipatory breach of contract in China. And on the basis of comparing with the system of uneasiness right of defense, this paper introduces in detail the present legal situation of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country, and emphatically analyzes its imperfections, the shortcomings of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. The main results are as follows: first, Article 108 of contract Law is unreasonable, lacking of systematicness and inconsistent expression; second, the system of anticipatory breach of contract is not clear in its scope of application, which conflicts with the right of uneasiness to defend; third, the system of anticipatory breach of contract is inconsistent with each other. The provisions of legal relief are unreasonable. In view of these deficiencies, this paper, on the basis of combining the existing views of others, puts forward some superficial suggestions and countermeasures from the following aspects: first, The relevant legal provisions of anticipatory breach of contract system should be integrated and unified; second, the constitution of anticipatory breach of contract system should be clearly defined and the scope of application of the right of uneasiness defense should be expanded appropriately, and the right of uneasiness defense should be included in the system of anticipatory breach of contract; Third, express the remedy mode of anticipatory breach in the standard and unified language; stipulate the two different forms of anticipatory breach of contract explicitly and tacitly, and add the right to withdraw the anticipatory party in the explicit anticipatory breach of contract; The scope of expected damages for breach of contract is defined and the amount of damages is determined according to three different circumstances.
【学位授予单位】：苏州大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】