诉讼时效期间可约定性问题研究——兼评最高院《诉讼时效解释》第2条

发布时间：2018-06-22 18:59

本文选题：诉讼时效期间 + 约定延长　；参考：《西南民族大学学报(人文社科版)》2015年06期

【摘要】：诉讼时效期间可否约定延长或者缩短,比较法上存在不同立法例。就诉讼时效期间的约定延长而言,这种约定不会损害被告的利益;同时如果约定的期限适当,也不会损及公共利益;此外简单禁止这种约定的规范也容易被规避。因此这种约定只要不超过必要的限度,立法应当允许。就诉讼时效期间的约定缩短而言,立法不仅不必禁止,且不必为这种约定设定最短期限。如果当事人在合同中约定了一个非常不合理的短期时效期间,权利人可以通过行使撤销权来保障自己的权益。最高院《诉讼时效解释》第2条的规定应该予以废止,未来立法可以将诉讼时效期间规范由强制性规范改为有限度的任意性规范。
[Abstract]:Whether the statute of limitations can be agreed to extend or shorten, there are different legislation in comparative law. In the case of an extension of the statute of limitations, such an agreement would not prejudice the interests of the defendant; nor would the public interest be harmed if the period of agreement was appropriate; moreover, the norm of simply prohibiting such an agreement would be easily circumvented. So long as this agreement does not exceed the necessary limit, the legislation should allow. As far as the agreement of limitation period is shortened, legislation not only does not need to prohibit, but also does not need to set the shortest time limit for such agreement. If the parties agree on a very unreasonable short-term limitation period, the obligee can protect his rights and interests by exercising the right of rescission. The provisions of Article 2 of the Supreme Court's interpretation of limitation of Action should be repealed, and the future legislation may change the norm of limitation period from mandatory norm to limited arbitrariness norm.
【作者单位】：河北师范大学法政学院;中国光大银行河北分行廊坊分行;
【基金】：河北师范大学校级重点基金项目“股东除名法律问题研究”(S2014Z05)阶段性成果河北师范大学马克思主义原理博士后流动站资助
【分类号】：D923.1

【共引文献】