合同解除与风险负担关系研究

发布时间：2018-06-02 04:01

本文选题：合同解除 + 风险负担　；参考：《吉林大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：合同解除和风险负担都是目前契约法中对不可归责于合同当事人的履行障碍的处理方式。大陆法系国家设定了合同解除，使当事人从不能实现目的的合同约束中解放，同时通常又规定有风险负担，以使得合同标的物毁损灭失的损失在合同当事人之间合理分配，进而认定债务是否需要继续履行以及对待给付可否请求。这样，两者发生作用的范围必然有交错。近年来，大陆法系国家债法改革中就出现了以合同解除吸收风险负担从而使法律本身体系更加明晰的主张。我国《合同法》在最具代表性的买卖合同中确定了风险负担规则，在合同法总则中确定了合同解除规则，从而也不免存有两者交错的问题。国内有学者就该交错进行过探讨，但是对两者的关系鲜有深入剖析。合同解除的取向在于使当事人之间的利益恢复到合同订立之前的状态，当然并不排除对违约状态下受到的损失要求赔偿。我国法中，合同解除后，尚未履行的债务，不再履行，已经履行的，以“恢复原状”、“采取其他补救措施”等进行处理。风险负担规则的作用主要体现在买卖合同中，以交付主义为原则，部分情况下，以所有权主义（如租赁合同）、合同成立主义处理（如路货买卖合同）为补充。在常见的风险来源（不可抗力、意外事件、第三人原因、货物属性等）下，风险负担和合同解除解决履行障碍的路径不同，但实际效果却较为相近，主要的不同之处在于合同解除对合同关系本身的归宿做了确定。债务人因为承担了标的物上的风险，导致债务的不能履行，此时可以认为，风险负担成为合同解除的原因。另外，解除合同需要解除行为，即通知对方。合同解除权本身有一定的期间限制，期限徒过则解除权人仍得受合同约束。而风险负担的效果由法律直接规定，且在合同履行发生障碍时便已有结果，不受期间限制。在有违约行为的外在条件下，标的物上的风险向违约方倾斜，而且合同解除与否常常会对风险是否回溯到由出卖人承担有直接影响。此时可以认为合同解除是风险负担变化的原因。本文第一章对不同风险来源下两者产生效用进行分析，探究其异同。此外，对有违约行为的情况下两种规则的效用变化和几个其他类型的合同中两者的作用进行分析，从而在第二章从指向目标、作用效果、适用程序以及蕴含惩罚性等方面对两者进行对比研究。最后一部分明确合同解除和风险负担的关系，探寻两者在实际适用中并存的可能、应当遵循的路径和未来立法改进的方向。经过上述分析，所得结论在于以下几点：一，在我国目前的合同法环境下，合同解除和风险负担应当继续并存；二，风险负担制度应当更加明确具体，，例如有违约行为的情况下的风险分配、标的物毁损灭失后合同关系本身的归宿等需要明确；三，对于法定免责事由进一步明确其标准和免责的范围；四，合同解除后的清算关系需要完善，尤其合同解除后不能返还原物的情况应当如何处理需要进一步明确。
[Abstract]:The contract release and the risk burden are the way to deal with the failure of the parties to the contract in the current contract law . The continental law system state sets the contract to relieve the parties from the contract restrictions that cannot achieve the purpose . At the same time , the parties usually stipulate the risk burden so that the loss of the contract subject matter is reasonably distributed among the parties to the contract , and then it is determined whether the debts need to continue to be performed and the possibility of treatment to be covered . In recent years , the civil law system has appeared in the reform of the state debt law to relieve the risk of absorbing the risk so as to make the legal system more clear .
In the most representative contract of the contract law , the contract law of China determines the rules of risk burden . In the general rules of the contract law , the contract dissolution rules are established , so that there is no problem that they are staggered . At home , scholars have discussed the interleaving , but there is little in - depth analysis of the relationship between them .
In China ' s law , after the contract is dissolved , the debts that have not been fulfilled , which are not fulfilled , the contract is not fulfilled , and the contract is set up in the form of " restitution " and " take other remedial measures " . The effect of the risk burden is mainly embodied in the contract . The effect of the risk burden is directly regulated by law .
The first chapter analyzes the effectiveness of the two rules under different sources of risk , explores the similarities and differences between them . In addition , it analyzes the utility of the two rules and the roles of several other types of contracts in the case of default behavior , so as to find out the relationship between the termination of contract and the burden of risk , and explore the possibility of the coexistence of the two in the practical application , the path that should be followed and the direction of improvement of future legislation .
After the above analysis , the conclusion is as follows : Firstly , under the current contract law environment , contract termination and risk burden should continue to coexist ;
II . The risk - burden system should be more specific , such as the risk distribution in the case of breach of contract , the settlement of the subject matter after the destruction of the subject matter , and the fate of the contractual relationship itself ;
3 . Further clarify the scope of its standard and exemption for legal disclaimers ;
IV . The liquidation relationship after the termination of the contract needs to be improved , especially if the original material cannot be returned after the termination of the contract .
【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

【参考文献】