预期违约制度的中美比较研究

发布时间：2018-05-13 08:23

本文选题：预期违约 + 期前履行拒绝　；参考：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：在现实生活中，由于非即时清结合同在合同缔结后履行期到来前往往有一段间隔期，这时合同当事人就有可能基于自身利益或者其他客观因素的考虑，在合同有效成立后至履行期限届满前拒绝履行合同义务或者存在不能履行合同义务的现实危险。传统民法对合同的保护主要体现在履行期限届满之后合同一方当事人不履行合同义务给对方当事人造成损失时应当承担违约责任，但在合同实践中，自合同成立后至合同履行期限届至前，一方当事人明确表示或用自己的行为来表示将不履行合同，往往也会给对方当事人的期待利益构成威胁。这时如果另一方当事人不能及时获得救济，减少损失的话，就只能等待履行期限到来后才能追究对方的违约责任，这将不利于保护合同当事人的合法利益。为了缓解这种严格的的规则带来的不利后果，英国普通法逐渐发展出来一种规则即预期违约规则。1853年审理的霍契斯特诉德拉图尔案中，法官确立了该规则，之后，该规则在一系列案例中不断被运用、发展，并被其他许多国家所吸收采纳。美国合同法源于英国的合同普通法，预期违约规则被引进美国合同法并得到了除马萨诸塞州以外的美国各州的承认，霍切斯特案确立的规则常常被援引适用。1949年，经过长时间的起草和讨论，由美国法学会和统一州法全国委员会正式发表了美国《统一商法典》，美国《统一商法典》在英国判例的基础上，不仅将预期违约制度写入了法典中，而且规定的更加具体和完善，其中《统一商法典》第2-610条规定了期前拒绝履行规则，对期前履行拒绝规则的构成要件及法律后果做了详细规定，而第2-609条确立了充分履约之保障的规则，作为期前履行拒绝规则的补充，在实务上有革新意义，《统一商法典》规定在美国仅适用于货物买卖合同，但由美国法学会组织众多学者、法官、律师编写的《合同法重述（第二次）》则把预期违约规则上升为美国合同法上的一项普遍规则。1999年，在法学界许多民商法专家学者强烈呼吁下，我国《合同法》正式引入预期违约制度，完善了我国的违约制度体系，是我国合同立法史上的一大突破，但《合同法》对预期违约制度的规定和美国合同法中的预期违约制度相比存在许多的缺陷和不足。为了弥补这些缺陷与不足，笔者撰写本文，以完善我国《合同法》预期违约制度为根本出发点，运用比较分析的方法特别是现实案例比较的方法对该制度全面系统的研究，并在此基础上提出完善我国《合同法》预期违约制度的设想，以期对完善我国预期违约制度有所帮助。我国许多学者对预期违约制度的起源发展有所研究，但对预期违约的概念进行辨析的著述并不多见，笔者在本文对预期违约概念进行辨析得出预期违约制度的存在与发展的基础是合同一方当事人在履行期届至前的拒绝履行行为。现在虽有一部分著述对预期违约作比较研究，但大多是在理论层面，鲜有著述通过现实案例进行比较研究。判例法是美国合同法的核心环节，通过现实案例进行比较研究更有说服力，且更容易发现问题，从而解决问题。所以，笔者在本文通过案例比较分析法对中美预期违约制度进行了详细的比较研究。具体来说，我国关于预期违约的通说一般将预期违约制度分为明示预期违约与默示预期违约，而美国合同法的预期违约规则包括期前履行拒绝规则与充分履约之保障规则。明示预期违约与期前履行拒绝规则相似，但本文通过对焦点问题一致的中国案例与美国案例进行比较分析，得出我国明示预期违约存在界定不明，构成要件和救济方式不明确等问题，，同时我国合同法没有规定预期违约的撤回制度，这不符合我国合同法的合同自由和鼓励交易的原则，由此笔者针对这些问题提出了一些完善建议；同样，对于默示预期违约，笔者将之与充分履约之保障规则相比较，得出默示预期违约同样存在界定不明、规定冗余重复、救济方式不一等问题，但其构成要件规定不一，标准难以确定问题尤为重要，笔者认为可参照美国合同法中的充分履约之保障规则对其加以完善。
[Abstract]:In real life, because the non immediate settlement contract has a period of interval before the contract is concluded, the parties to the contract may be based on their own interests or other objective factors, and refuse to perform their contractual obligations or do not fulfill the contract meaning before the contract is valid until the expiration of the term of performance. The protection of the contract in traditional civil law is mainly reflected in the liability for breach of contract when one party does not fulfill the contract obligation to the other party after the expiration of the term of execution, but in the practice of the contract, one party clearly expresses or uses it from the end of the contract to the term of the contract performance. If the other party can not get the relief in time and reduce the loss, the other party can only wait for the deadline for the performance of the other party to investigate the party's liability for breach of contract. This will be not conducive to the protection of the legitimate interests of the parties to the contract. To mitigate the adverse consequences of this strict rule, the British ordinary law gradually developed a rule, the.1853 case of the expected breach of contract, in the case of La Tour, the judge established the rule, and then the rule was used in a series of cases, developed, and absorbed by many other countries. The contract law of the state is derived from the common law of the United Kingdom, which is expected to be introduced into the United States contract law and recognized by the states other than Massachusetts. The rules established by the Chester case are often invoked for.1949 years. After a long period of drafting and discussion, the United States law society and the unified State Law National Committee formally issued the rules. The United Commercial Code of the United States and the United States Code of the United States, on the basis of the case of the United Kingdom, not only put the system of anticipatory breach of contract into the code of law, but also make it more specific and perfect, in which article 2-610 of the unified Commercial Code stipulates the refusal to perform the rules before the period, and makes a detailed account of the elements and legal consequences of the refusal rules before the period. The rules for the guarantee of full compliance are established in article 2-609. As a supplement to the refusal rules of the previous period, it is practical and innovative. The unified Commercial Code stipulates that the United States is only applicable to the sale of goods in the United States, but the United States law association organizes many scholars, judges, and lawyers to rewrite the contract law (second). The rules of breach of contract have risen to a general rule in the American Contract Law.1999. In the strong appeal of many civil and commercial law experts and scholars in the law circle, the contract law of China has formally introduced the system of anticipatory breach of contract and perfected the system of breach of contract in our country. It is a breakthrough in the history of contract legislation in China, but the contract law stipulates the regulation of the system of anticipatory breach of contract. The system of anticipatory breach of contract in the American contract law has many defects and shortcomings. In order to make up for these defects and shortcomings, the author writes this article to perfect our country "Contract Law > anticipatory breach of contract system" as the fundamental starting point, and use comparative analysis method, especially the method of real case comparison, to study the comprehensive system of the system, and here On the basis of this, we put forward the idea of perfecting the expected breach of contract law in our country, in order to improve our system of anticipatory breach of contract.
Many scholars in our country have studied the origin and development of the system of anticipatory breach of contract, but there are few writings on the concept of anticipatory breach of contract. In this paper, the author differentiates the concept of anticipatory breach of contract and concludes that the basis of the existence and development of the system of anticipatory breach of contract is the refusal performance of one party in the contract. Although there is a part of a comparative study of the expected breach of contract, most of them are in the theoretical level. There are few writings on the comparative study through practical cases. Case law is the core link of the United States contract law. It is more convincing and more easy to find out the problems through practical cases. The case comparative analysis method is used to make a detailed comparative study of the system of anticipatory breach of contract between China and the United States. Specifically, the general theory of anticipatory breach of contract in our country generally divides the expected default system into explicit anticipatory breach of contract and implied anticipatory breach of contract, while the expected breach rules of the United States contract law include the guarantee rules for the performance of refusal rules and full compliance. It shows that the expected breach of contract is similar to the refusal rule before the period, but through the comparison and analysis of the Chinese case with the United States case, which is consistent with the focus issues, this article draws a conclusion that there are some problems in our country's explicit anticipatory breach of contract, the elements and the way of relief are not clear. In accordance with the principle of freedom of contract and encouraging transaction in the contract law of China, the author puts forward some perfect suggestions on these problems. As for the implied breach of contract, the author compares it with the guarantee rules of full compliance, and draws a conclusion that the implied anticipatory breach of contract is unidentified, redundant duplication, and remedies are different. But the constitution is different, the standard is difficult to determine the problem is particularly important. I think it can be improved by referring to the guarantee rules of the full implementation of the United States contract law.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D923.6;D971.2

【相似文献】