合同预期不履行的救济及其法理基

发布时间：2018-04-12 14:44

本文选题：预期不履行 + 法律救济　；参考：《比较法研究》2017年06期

【摘要】：《合同法》中的不安抗辩权和预期违约均为预期不履行的救济制度,在适用要件和法律效果上都存在着重叠的可能性,如何梳理二者的关系,一直是我国民法学界较为关注的问题。本文认为,预期不履行的法律救济有"渐进性"和"径直性"两大模式,二者的适用范围主要根据预期不履行的确定性程度来区分。《合同法》中的不安抗辩权对应于前者,预期违约对应于后者,故二者在功能和适用范围上应有明确区分。在现行《合同法》框架下,应将预期违约的适用范围限定于严格意义上的期前拒绝履行,同时对不安抗辩权的适用范围进行适度扩张,以使其适用于所有不履行可能性较高但尚不确定的情形。此外,针对我国司法实践及学界中争议较多的、债权人根据《合同法》第69条解除合同后如何请求损害赔偿的问题,本文认为,期前解除权和期前损害赔偿请求权在法理基础及成立范围上并不相同,二者在逻辑上属于两个问题,故在不安抗辩权框架下仅规定中止履行权和期前解除权即已足够,既无须将第69条与预期违约规则衔接,亦无须将其解释为新的预期违约规则;而有关适用第69条时的期前损害赔偿问题,则应根据《合同法》第107条而非第108条来处理。
[Abstract]:The right of restless defense and the anticipatory breach of contract in the contract Law are both the remedy system of anticipatory non-performance. There is a possibility of overlap in the applicable elements and legal effects. How to sort out the relationship between the two?It has always been the concern of the civil law circle in our country.Anticipatory breach of contract corresponds to the latter, so there should be a clear distinction between them in function and scope of application.Under the framework of the present contract Law, the scope of application of anticipatory breach of contract should be limited to refusal to perform before the period in strict sense, and the scope of application of the right of uneasiness defense should be expanded moderately at the same time.To make it applicable in all cases where non-performance is more likely but not yet certain.In addition, in view of the dispute in judicial practice and academic circles in our country, how to apply for damages after the creditor terminates the contract according to Article 69 of the contract Law, this paper holds that,The right to rescind before term and the right to claim compensation for damages before term are different from each other in terms of legal basis and scope of establishment. They belong to two problems logically, so it is sufficient to stipulate only the right of suspension of performance and the right of rescission before term under the framework of uneasy right of defense.There is no need to link article 69 with the expected breach rule, nor to interpret it as a new anticipatory breach rule, and the question of pre-period damages in the application of article 69 should be dealt with in accordance with Article 107 of the contract Law rather than with Article 108 of the contract Law.
【作者单位】：上海交通大学凯原法学院;
【基金】：笔者主持的上海市哲学社会科学规划青年课题“合同不履行风险的法律应对问题研究——以‘早期损失避免和损失清算’为视角”(2017EFX007) 上海市教育发展基金会和上海市教育委员会“晨光计划”(16CG13)的阶段性研究成果
【分类号】：D923.6

【相似文献】