融资租赁合同解除与风险负担规则并存模式之评析

发布时间：2018-06-10 04:41

本文选题：融资租赁 + 风险负担　；参考：《晋阳学刊》2015年01期

【摘要】：关于融资租赁标的物不可归责于双方的原因毁损灭失,《融资租赁合同司法解释》既规定了风险负担规则,又规定了合同解除制度。融资租赁合同之所以由承租人承受风险,缘于其融资的属性,其并非是经典意义上的风险负担规则。针对风险负担规则与合同解除制度适用的不同,可采取以下解释方案弥合两者之间的距离。即不可归责于双方的原因毁损灭失时,无论是适用合同解除还是风险负担规则,出租人得以请求剩余租赁期间的租金,承租人亦仍享有其期限利益。若承租人放弃其期限利益,且当事人未作特别约定,应就剩余租赁期间的租金作出清算,扣减该期间内的利润。就剩余租赁期间之外的租赁标的物毁损灭失的损失负担问题,则应依当事人约定期满归属的不同而作出不同的清算。
[Abstract]:As for the reason that the subject matter of financial lease can not be imputed to both sides, the judicial interpretation of financial lease contract not only stipulates the rules of risk burden, but also stipulates the system of contract rescission. The reason why the lessee bears the risk is because of its property of financing, which is not the classical risk burden rule. In view of the difference between the rules of risk burden and the system of rescission of contract, the following explanation scheme can be adopted to bridge the gap between the two. That is, the lessor can claim the rent of the remaining lease period, and the lessee still has the benefit of the term when the reason of damage and loss cannot be attributed to both parties, whether the contract is dissolved or the risk burden rule is applied. If the lessee waives his period of interest and the parties do not make a special agreement, the rent for the remainder of the lease period shall be liquidated and the profits during that period shall be reduced. As for the loss burden of the damage and loss of the subject matter of the lease other than the remaining lease period, different liquidation should be made according to the different attribution of the term of the lease agreed by the parties.
【作者单位】：浙江大学光华法学院;
【基金】：教育部新世纪优秀人才支持计划 “国家特支计划”青年拔尖人才、浙江省151人才工程及浙江省社科规划课题“民间金融市场主体的法律制度构建及完善”(项目编号:14YSXK01ZD-1YB)的阶段性成果
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】