论违约救济方式选择后的可变更性

发布时间：2018-04-09 09:11

本文选题：救济方式　切入点：选择救济　出处：《华东政法大学学报》2015年02期

【摘要】：违约救济方式相互排斥应区分出择一行使这一特殊情形,尤其不应在此情形下直接认定当事人选择了其一就等于放弃另一救济方式。《合同法》第111条中的选择不属于选择之债,不同于选择之债中的选择权,不必定性为形成权;这里构成择一竞合关系,受损害方有选择变更权。解除权为形成权的定性有其限度,学理中的不可撤销性这一共通原则不宜因定性而一体适用。行使解除权可在区分解除权发生原因和解除权行使条件的基础上,进一步将解除权效力发生的认定与解除声明是否可撤销变更的问题作分开处理。为便于灵活处理可分立出救济变更问题,规范总体进路应从传统建立在法律行为责任基础上的同意原则转向采纳体现现代共同发展趋势的信赖原则。
[Abstract]:The mutual exclusion of the mode of relief for breach of contract should distinguish the special case of alternative exercise, especially if the party chooses one, it should not be considered as renouncing the other. The choice in Article 111 of the contract Law is not a debt of choice.Unlike the option in the debt of choice, it does not need to be characterized as the right of formation; this constitutes an alternative relationship, and the aggrieved party has the right to choose to change.There are limits to the nature of the right of dissolution as the right of formation, and the general principle of irrevocability in academic theory should not be applied as a whole.On the basis of distinguishing the causes of rescission and the conditions of exercising the right of rescission, the determination of the effect of rescission and the question of whether the statement of rescission is revocable or not can be dealt with separately.In order to deal with the problem of divisible relief change flexibly, it is necessary to change the general approach from the traditional principle of consent based on legal responsibility to the principle of adopting the principle of trust, which reflects the trend of modern common development.
【作者单位】：清华大学法学院;
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】