我国委托合同任意解除权限制问题研究

发布时间：2018-05-27 22:29

本文选题：委托合同任意解除权 + 有偿、无偿委托　；参考：《上海师范大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：委托合同任意解除权制度来源于罗马法,其基础一般是基于友情、私人关系,收取报酬则被认为与这种传统发展出来的契约方式的本质精神相冲突。大陆法系中追求、延续的委托制度的无偿特性,委托合同双方的信赖关系,都是因此起源而来。随着社会经济的发展,有偿委托逐渐盛行,委托合同任意解除权滥用现象逐渐增加。为了限制有偿委托中任意解除权的使用、维护合同双方的合法权益,各国民法典多对委托合同任意解除权的行使制定了相关的法规、解释予以限制。我国《合同法》第410条规定了委托合同的任意解除权,即委托人或者受托人可以随时解除委托合同,因解除合同给对方造成损失的,除不可归责于该当事人的事由以外,应当赔偿损失,其目的在于保护作为委托合同基础的当事人间信任关系。但该规定在司法解释中,未对其作出详细的司法解释。但是由于其规定过于宽泛,既没有区分有偿委托和无偿委托,也没有限制解除合同的时间,委托人可“随时”解除合同。关于双方当事人约定抛弃任意解除权的问题,也没有明确对其效力加以认定。因为没有限制性规定,在现实生活中,出现了委托合同当事人大量滥用任意解除权的现象。由于近年委托合同类型和合同利益的繁杂化造成该任意解除制权的立法背景发生变化,导致制度目的不达,对信任关系的保护片面化,权利被滥用。鉴于任意解除权本身就是一个舶来品,比较法上对上述问题的处理方式值得借鉴。通过各国的立法例比较,可知限制委托合同任意解除权,可从多方面加以规制。如瑞士民法典中的时间限制,即规定委托事项完成后的时间内不允许行使任意解除权;意定限制,允许当事人双方约定,抛弃委托合同的任意解除权,概因任意解除权非强制性法律规定,而是任意性法律规定;适用范围限制,譬如德国,就将委托合同任意解除权限制在无偿委托合同中,有偿委托不得适用,等等。明确我国对委托合同任意解除权的已存在的规制问题,可以因弊生问,从而更有针对性地寻找解决其规范条文细致不足的方法;运用比较法分析存在问题,能够积极吸取合理的法律规范,更好地为委托合同任意解除权的细化、限制提供有效的、更有借鉴意义有实践可能性的方式。
[Abstract]:The system of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract originates from Roman law, which is based on friendship, personal relationship, and the collection of remuneration is considered to conflict with the essence of this traditional way of contract. The free characteristics of the consignment system and the trust relationship between the two parties in the civil law system are all derived from this reason. With the development of social economy, paid entrustment is prevailing gradually, and the abuse of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract is increasing gradually. In order to limit the use of the right of arbitrary rescission and to safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of both parties to the contract, the civil codes of many countries have made relevant laws and regulations on the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract, which are interpreted and restricted. Article 410 of the contract Law of our country provides for the right of any dissolution of the entrustment contract, that is, the principal or the trustee may terminate the entrustment contract at any time, and if the cancellation of the contract causes damage to the other party, except for the reasons not attributable to the party concerned, The purpose of compensation is to protect the trust relationship between the parties on the basis of the entrustment contract. But this provision in the judicial interpretation, did not make the detailed judicial explanation to it. But because its stipulation is too broad, neither does it distinguish between paid and free entrustment, nor does it limit the time of rescission, the principal can terminate the contract "at any time". On the issue of the parties' agreement to abandon the right of arbitrary rescission, there is no clear determination of its effectiveness. Because there are no restrictive provisions, in real life, there is a large number of parties to the commission contract abuse of the right to rescind the arbitrary phenomenon. Due to the variety of contract types and contract interests in recent years, the legislative background of this arbitrary right of rescission has changed, resulting in the failure of the purpose of the system, the one-sided protection of trust relations and the abuse of rights. In view of the arbitrary right of rescission itself is an import, comparative law on the above-mentioned issues should be used for reference. Through the comparison of legislative cases in various countries, it can be seen that the restriction of the right of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contracts can be regulated from many aspects. For example, the time limit in the Swiss Civil Code, that is, the time after the completion of the entrustment item shall not allow the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission; the agreed restriction shall allow the parties to agree to abandon the right of arbitrary dissolution of the entrustment contract. The scope of application is limited, such as Germany, the contract of entrustment is limited in the contract of free entrustment, paid entrustment may not be applied, and so on. It is clear that the existing regulation problem of the arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract in our country can be asked because of the disadvantages, so as to find out more pertinently the methods to solve the detailed deficiencies of its normative provisions, and to analyze the existing problems by using the comparative method. It can actively absorb reasonable legal norms and better provide effective and practical ways for the refinement and limitation of the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract.
【学位授予单位】：上海师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6

【参考文献】