风险负担规则与合同解除

发布时间：2018-03-10 01:28

本文选题：合同法　切入点：风险负担　出处：《法学研究》2010年01期 　论文类型：期刊论文

【摘要】：学说和立法草案多有以合同解除制度吸收风险负担规则的主张,在我国司法实践中,两者的交错也带来了法律适用上的困惑。合同解除制度和风险负担规则具有各自的优势领域,解除一元论和并存模式是目前具有代表性的两种制度安排。在我国合同法采并存模式的背景下,风险由债务人负担时可择一适用,但需就解除权期间、清算关系中的诉讼时效、风险负担抗辩等问题作出特别处理。风险由债权人负担时应当否定债权人的解除权。瑕疵给付时的解除与风险负担应适用合同法第148条、第149条的规定,但在立法论上有重新斟酌的必要。持续性合同可类推适用租赁合同的规定或部分解除制度。清算关系中的风险分配可有限制地准用合同法第148条的规定。
[Abstract]:Most of the doctrine and draft legislation have the idea of absorbing the rules of risk burden by the system of rescission of contract. In the judicial practice of our country, The interlacing of the two also leads to confusion in the application of the law. The system of rescission of contracts and the rules of risk burden have their respective advantages. Dissolution monism and coexistence mode are two kinds of representative institutional arrangements at present. Under the background of concurrent mode adopted in contract law of our country, the risk can be shouldered by the debtor, but the limitation of action in the liquidation relationship during the period of rescission right is needed. When the risk is borne by the creditor, the dissolving right of the creditor shall be denied. The provisions of Article 148 and Article 149 of the contract Law shall apply to the discharge and the risk burden of the defective payment. However, there is a need for reconsideration in the legislative theory. Continuing contracts can be applied by analogy to the provisions of lease contracts or partial rescission, and risk distribution in liquidation relationships may be limited by the provisions of Article 148 of the contract Law.
【作者单位】：浙江大学光华法学院;
【基金】：浙江省哲学社会科学规划课题“产业结构升级背景下的服务合同风险负担问题研究”(项目号:09CGFX004YBQ) 2008年度浙江省“钱江人才计划”重点项目“服务合同研究”(项目号:QJC0801003) 浙江大学优秀青年教师资助计划(紫金计划) 国家“211工程”三期重点学科建设项目“转型期法治的理论、制度与实证研究”的阶段性成果之一。
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】