论委托合同任意解除权的适用及限制
发布时间：2018-09-05 17:37
【摘要】：《合同法》第410条规定的委托合同任意解除权制度赋予了委托合同双方当事人随时且不需要理由的解除合同的权利。该权利存在的正当性在于委托合同当事人之间存在特殊信赖关系。但在现实经济活动中,尤其是在有偿商事委托中,维系委托人与受托人的纽带并非仅仅只有信任那么简单,且法律条文过于简洁亦无相关法律解释予以细化,这也使得委托合同中任意解除权在实际适用中出现了一些负面影响,因此需要予以一定的规范及限定。本文梳理与研究了相关现实纠纷后发现委托合同任意解除权在实际适用中的问题主要体现在:委托合同中任意解除权与一般法定解除权的适用关系、任意解除权的适用范围、行使任意解除权后的损害赔偿范围以及约定放弃任意解除权的效力这四个方面。本文认为,委托合同任意解除权与一般法定解除权存在不同的立法旨趣。在具体适用中,应当首先尊重当事人的意志。当事人没有明确表示选择适用何种解除权时,在一般法定解除权适用条件成就时,优先适用一般法定解除权。委托合同任意解除权的适用范围应当设定一定的限度,当该无名合同的本质是基于信任而建立的劳务合同时,允许委托合同任意解除权的类推适用,而囊括了其他合同性质的混合型合同不能适用委托合同任意解除权。同时,基于目前我国的立法现状及司法实践,承认商事有偿委托合同中任意解除权的存在,并通过损害赔偿制度限制其滥用。行使任意解除权之后的损失赔偿范围不能简单的认定。在无偿委托中,应当将赔偿范围限定在直接损失;但在有偿商事委托合同中,应当综合委托合同的性质及当事人双方在合同履行中的行为进行具体分析,并不否认可得利益赔偿。原则上承认委托合同任意解除权的约定放弃的效力,但在仅基于人身信任关系而建立的委托合同中,否认任意解除权预先约定放弃的效力。
[Abstract]:The system of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract stipulated in Article 410 of contract Law gives both parties the right to rescind the contract at any time and without reason. The legitimacy of the existence of the right lies in the existence of a special trust relationship between the parties to the entrustment contract. But in the real economic activities, especially in the paid commercial trust, the bond between the principal and the trustee is not only simple, but also the legal provisions are too simple and without relevant legal interpretation to be refined. This also causes some negative effects on the practical application of the right of arbitrary rescission in the entrustment contract, so it needs to be regulated and limited. After combing and studying the relevant practical disputes, this paper finds out that the problems in the practical application of the arbitrary rescission right of the entrustment contract are mainly reflected in: the applicable relation between the arbitrary rescission right and the general legal dissolution right in the entrustment contract, the scope of application of the arbitrary rescission right. The scope of damages after the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission and the effect of the agreement to waive the right of arbitrary discharge. This paper holds that there are different legislative purport between the right of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract and the general legal right of rescission. In the specific application, should first respect the will of the party concerned. When the parties do not clearly indicate which kind of right of discharge should be applied, the general legal right of discharge shall be applied first when the applicable conditions of the general legal right of discharge are achieved. When the nature of the nameless contract is a labor contract established on the basis of trust, it is allowed to apply by analogy the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. And the mixed contract including other contractual nature can not be applied to the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. At the same time, based on the current legislative situation and judicial practice in our country, the existence of arbitrary rescission right in commercial paid commission contract is recognized, and its abuse is restricted by the system of compensation for damages. The scope of compensation for loss after exercising the right of arbitrary rescission cannot be simply determined. In the free entrustment, the scope of compensation should be limited to the direct loss; however, in the contract of commercial trust, the nature of the contract and the behavior of both parties in the performance of the contract shall be analyzed concretely. There is no denying that compensation is available. In principle, it recognizes the effect of the agreement waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract, but in the contract of entrustment established only on the basis of personal trust, it denies the effect of the prior agreement on the waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
本文编号：2224977
[Abstract]:The system of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract stipulated in Article 410 of contract Law gives both parties the right to rescind the contract at any time and without reason. The legitimacy of the existence of the right lies in the existence of a special trust relationship between the parties to the entrustment contract. But in the real economic activities, especially in the paid commercial trust, the bond between the principal and the trustee is not only simple, but also the legal provisions are too simple and without relevant legal interpretation to be refined. This also causes some negative effects on the practical application of the right of arbitrary rescission in the entrustment contract, so it needs to be regulated and limited. After combing and studying the relevant practical disputes, this paper finds out that the problems in the practical application of the arbitrary rescission right of the entrustment contract are mainly reflected in: the applicable relation between the arbitrary rescission right and the general legal dissolution right in the entrustment contract, the scope of application of the arbitrary rescission right. The scope of damages after the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission and the effect of the agreement to waive the right of arbitrary discharge. This paper holds that there are different legislative purport between the right of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract and the general legal right of rescission. In the specific application, should first respect the will of the party concerned. When the parties do not clearly indicate which kind of right of discharge should be applied, the general legal right of discharge shall be applied first when the applicable conditions of the general legal right of discharge are achieved. When the nature of the nameless contract is a labor contract established on the basis of trust, it is allowed to apply by analogy the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. And the mixed contract including other contractual nature can not be applied to the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. At the same time, based on the current legislative situation and judicial practice in our country, the existence of arbitrary rescission right in commercial paid commission contract is recognized, and its abuse is restricted by the system of compensation for damages. The scope of compensation for loss after exercising the right of arbitrary rescission cannot be simply determined. In the free entrustment, the scope of compensation should be limited to the direct loss; however, in the contract of commercial trust, the nature of the contract and the behavior of both parties in the performance of the contract shall be analyzed concretely. There is no denying that compensation is available. In principle, it recognizes the effect of the agreement waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract, but in the contract of entrustment established only on the basis of personal trust, it denies the effect of the prior agreement on the waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission.
【学位授予单位】：南京师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D923.6
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 张良;;民法典编纂背景下我国《合同法》分则之完善——以民事合同与商事合同的区分为视角[J];法学杂志;2016年09期
2 易军;;买卖合同之规定准用于其他有偿合同[J];法学研究;2016年01期
3 陆青;;论法定解除事由的规范体系——以一般规范与特别规范的关系为中心[J];华东政法大学学报;2015年01期
4 蔡恒;骆电;;我国《合同法》上任意解除权的理解与适用[J];法律适用;2014年12期
5 崔建远;;编纂民法典必须摆正几对关系[J];清华法学;2014年06期
6 陆青;;合同解除效果与违约责任——以请求权基础为视角之检讨[J];北方法学;2012年06期
7 宁红丽;;无偿合同:民法学与社会学之维[J];政法论坛;2012年01期
8 马春元;;任意解除权的规制问题探讨——兼论合同解除制度的重构[J];郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版);2009年06期
9 崔建远;吴光荣;;我国合同法上解除权的行使规则[J];法律适用;2009年11期
10 苏志甫;;合同解除损害赔偿问题研究——兼论合同法第九十七条的适用与完善[J];人民司法;2009年19期
，本文编号：2224977
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2224977.html
