违约方行使合同解除权问题研究

发布时间：2018-01-15 12:02

本文关键词：违约方行使合同解除权问题研究　出处：《吉林大学》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：违约方行使合同解除权的问题一直是困扰理论界和司法界的难点问题,本文选取违约方诉讼解除合同的两个案例,通过对案例进行比较评析,重点围绕现行法律制度下违约方有无法定合同解除权、法院在裁判合同解除纠纷案件中的职权和作用以及违约方诉讼解除合同,法院应否支持这三个问题展开讨论。合同一方以通知的形式告知另一方其要求解除合同,就可产生双方合同解除的效果,这种权利就是合同解除权。当收到通知的当事人不同意解除合同,向法院起诉时,法院在裁判合同解除纠纷案件中的职权就是具体审查通知解除合同一方有没有合同解除权,其解除合同是否有双方合同中约定的情形,是否具有法律所明文规定的可以解除的情形,进而确认合同是否已于一方当事人的通知到达时解除。法院依职权判决解除合同的情形仅限于情势变更的情况。在我国现行法律制度体系中,合同解除包括约定条件下的解除、双方当事人协商一致解除、《合同法》第九十四条、第一百一十条规定的解除以及情势变更下的解除,除此之外,再无其他合同解除的法律依据。纵观我国合同解除制度,笔者通过体系分析认为,无论是从逻辑角度,还是从法理的应然角度,违约方都不享有《合同法》第九十四条第(二)—(四)项规定的合同解除权。合同解除权能够由违约方所享有,仅限于以下三种情形:(1)合同中约定的解除情形发生时;(2)不可抗力的情况出现足以影响合同目的的实现时;(3)《合同法》第一百一十条规定的情况出现时。在情势变更的情况下,违约方虽不享有合同解除权,但仍可基于情势变更的客观情况,由法院判决解除合同,从而脱离合同的束缚。通过对我国现行合同解除制度背后的设计理念进行梳理,笔者认为,我国沿袭了大陆法系的传统,仍强调合同严守主义和诚实信用原则,合同不得无条件的任意解除。这一理念虽值得褒奖和秉持,但是因社会环境复杂且不断发展变化,人们囿于有限理性和信息不对称的限制,违约方因约定及法定以外的原因不得已要求解除合同,比如其最初订立合同的目的在合同履行过程中已无法实现,继续履行将产生巨大损失,如果在现行的法律制度下无法实现对合同的逃离,首先强制其履行的结果尚未可知,而且也不免对其造成不经济而显失公平,因此有必要对其权利进行救济。笔者认为,应在坚持法律理念一致的基础上寻求解决途径,即有条件的支持违约方诉讼解除合同,通过仿效情势变更原则的处理方式,以最高院出台司法解释的形式进行规制,由法院依职权通过行使自由裁量权判决解除合同。笔者进行初步的构想,赞成避害型的违约从道德角度来看应该可以得到救济,当合同目的因特殊情况无法实现、又不宜强迫违约方履行该合同义务时,只要违约方在对守约方的信赖利益和可期待利益进行足额赔偿的基础上,法院可以通过衡平双方的利益,判决解除合同。
[Abstract]:The defaulting party the right to terminate the contract is always a difficult problem in both theoretical and judicial circles, this paper selects two cases of breach of contract lawsuit to terminate the contract, through the case of the focus on the current legal system has not set the default party right to terminate the contract, termination of the contract in the court authority and role of the dispute in the case of breach of contract litigation and the termination of the contract, the court should support the three issues. One party to a contract in the form of notification to inform the other party of its request to terminate the contract, the two sides will produce the effect of the termination of the contract, the rescission right of contract. When this right is received notice of the parties do not agree to terminate the contract, to the court sue, the court in the lifting of disputes in terms of the contract is a concrete review notice to terminate the contract one party has no right to terminate the contract, the two sides have to terminate the contract The situation of the agreement in the contract, whether it is expressly provided by law can be released, and then confirm the termination notice whether the contract has a party arrived. Under the authority of a court decision to terminate the contract situation is only limited to the situation change. In the current system of legal system of our country is in the termination of the contract, including agreed termination conditions the parties agreed to lift, "contract law" article ninety-fourth, the provisions of the 110th lifting and the lifting of the change of circumstances, in addition, no other legal basis for the termination of the contract. The termination of the contract system in our country, the author through system analysis, whether it is from a logical point of view, or from a practical perspective the law, the party in breach of contract law does not enjoy the < > ninety-fourth - (two) - (four) the provisions of the right to terminate the contract by the party in breach. To enjoy the right to terminate the contract, only to Under three kinds of situations: (1) termination occurs as agreed in the contract; (2) the force majeure situation to achieve enough to affect the purpose of the contract; (3) "contract law" provisions of article 110th appear the situation. In the circumstances change, the breaching party does not enjoy the solution right, but still the objective situation based on the change of circumstances, the decision by the court to terminate the contract, bound and away from the contract. Through carding, design concept behind the rescission system of our current contract the author believes that China follows the continental tradition, still strong adherence to contract doctrine and the principle of honesty and credit, the contract shall not be arbitrarily unconditional release. This idea is worth praising and uphold, but because of the social environment is complex and constantly changing, people because of limited rationality and information asymmetry, the defaulting party for reasons other than legal agreement and have to The termination of the contract, such as the original purpose of the contract in the contract process has been unable to achieve, continue to perform will cause huge losses. If you can not achieve the escape of the contract under current law, the first compulsory performance results are not yet known, but also avoid the diseconomy and unfair so it is necessary to relief their rights. The author thinks, should seek solutions based on upholding legal philosophy consistent, namely conditional support the breaching party to terminate the contract by Party litigation, follow the principle of change of circumstances, the regulation to the Supreme People's Court on the judicial interpretation form, by the courts through the exercise of freedom the discretion of decision to terminate the contract. The author makes a preliminary idea in favor of breach of contract and avoid the harm type from a moral point of view should be able to get relief, when the purpose of the contract due to special circumstances can not be realized Now, it should not be forced to perform the contract obligations of the defaulting party, as long as the breaching party based on the other party's reliance interest and look forward to the interests of the full compensation, the court can balance the interests of both sides, the decision to terminate the contract.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】