【摘要】：預(yù)期違約制度起源于英美法,最早以英國(guó)判例的形式(即英國(guó)1853年的Hoechester v. De La Tour一案)得以確立。后來(lái)在美國(guó)為《美國(guó)統(tǒng)一商法典》以法典形式認(rèn)可,并被1980年《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》和1994年《國(guó)際商事合同通則》所確認(rèn),進(jìn)而在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中得以廣泛應(yīng)用。我國(guó)在1999年頒布的《中華人民共和國(guó)合同法》第九十四條第二款和第一百零八條也以專(zhuān)門(mén)條文的形式規(guī)定了該項(xiàng)內(nèi)容。但與國(guó)外先進(jìn)立法相比,我國(guó)法律對(duì)此項(xiàng)內(nèi)容的規(guī)定過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)陋,且缺乏體系性,不便于司法實(shí)踐操作,因此本文將介紹英國(guó)、美國(guó)、1980年《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》和1994年《國(guó)際商事合同通則》關(guān)于其的具體規(guī)定,并分析他們對(duì)我國(guó)建立完善的預(yù)期違約制度的借鑒意義,提出要在我國(guó)形成一套科學(xué)完善的預(yù)期違約制度體系的觀點(diǎn)。 文章在結(jié)構(gòu)上分為三大部分,第一部分為預(yù)期違約制度概述,分四節(jié)介紹了預(yù)期違約制度的定義、起源和發(fā)展、確立的必要性和意義以及預(yù)期違約制度與實(shí)際違約、不安抗辯權(quán)的比較分析。本部分內(nèi)容是對(duì)預(yù)期違約制度進(jìn)行解讀,厘清預(yù)期違約與我國(guó)目前存在的實(shí)際違約和不安抗辯權(quán)這兩項(xiàng)內(nèi)容的關(guān)系,最終說(shuō)明該項(xiàng)制度的內(nèi)容在我國(guó)目前雖然零星存在,但我國(guó)實(shí)有必要建立一套科學(xué)體系。 第二部分和第三部分是文章的中心內(nèi)容。第二部分是對(duì)英美法及國(guó)際私法中的預(yù)期違約制度的解析。主要介紹了英國(guó)、美國(guó)、1980年《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》和2004年《國(guó)際商事合同通則》中的預(yù)期違約制度的具體內(nèi)容,重點(diǎn)介紹了各自的分類(lèi)形態(tài)、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和救濟(jì)方法。通過(guò)本部分的解析,希望闡明諸多規(guī)定的差異和相同之處,為第三部分論述英美法對(duì)我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度完善的借鑒作用打下基礎(chǔ)。 第三部分是英美法相關(guān)規(guī)定對(duì)我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度完善的借鑒作用。此部分點(diǎn)題,是整個(gè)文章的重點(diǎn)和創(chuàng)新。本部分共分四節(jié),第一節(jié)首先介紹了我國(guó)法律目前的預(yù)期違約內(nèi)容狀況,說(shuō)明當(dāng)前規(guī)定存在的不足。后面分三節(jié)介紹了在分類(lèi)形態(tài)、判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和救濟(jì)方法上應(yīng)該向英美法借鑒的內(nèi)容,最后一節(jié)是對(duì)文章的總結(jié),在此得出文章最后結(jié)論,即希望通過(guò)研究英美法和1980年《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》和2004年《國(guó)際商事合同通則》,學(xué)習(xí)先進(jìn)立法的成熟經(jīng)驗(yàn),促使我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度形成合理體系,即形成對(duì)預(yù)期違約的科學(xué)定義、科學(xué)分類(lèi)、科學(xué)限定默示預(yù)期違約的判斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、合理、清晰規(guī)定預(yù)期違約尤其是默示預(yù)期違約的救濟(jì)方法這一科學(xué)體系,并說(shuō)明應(yīng)該在法律中以專(zhuān)門(mén)一節(jié)的形式進(jìn)行集中規(guī)定。
[Abstract]:The system of anticipatory breach of contract originated in Anglo-American law and was first established in the form of English case (Hoechester v. De La Tour case of 1853). Later in the United States, the uniform Commercial Code of the United States was recognized in the form of a code, which was confirmed by the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods of 1980 and the principles of International Commercial contracts of 1994, and was then widely used in international trade. The second paragraph of Article 94 and Article 108 of contract Law of the people's Republic of China promulgated in 1999 also stipulated this content in the form of special provisions. However, compared with foreign advanced legislation, the provisions of Chinese law on this content are too simple, and lack of systematic, not convenient for judicial practice, so this article will introduce the United Kingdom, In the United States, the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods of 1980 and the General principles of International Commercial contracts of 1994 have specific provisions on them, and the significance of their reference to the establishment of a perfect system of anticipatory breach of contract in China is analyzed. Put forward to form a set of scientific and perfect system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. The article is divided into three parts in structure. The first part is an overview of the system of anticipatory breach of contract, which is divided into four sections to introduce the definition, origin and development of the system of anticipatory breach of contract, the necessity and significance of the establishment, and the system of anticipatory breach of contract and actual breach of contract. A comparative analysis of the right to unease defense. The content of this part is to interpret the system of anticipatory breach of contract, clarify the relationship between anticipatory breach of contract and the actual breach of contract and the right of restless defense, and finally explain that the content of this system exists sporadically in our country at present. However, it is necessary to establish a scientific system in China. The second part and the third part are the central contents of the article. The second part is the analysis of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in Anglo-American law and private international law. This paper mainly introduces the specific contents of the anticipatory breach of contract system in the United Kingdom, the United States, the United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods in 1980 and the General principles of International Commercial contracts in 2004, with emphasis on their respective classification forms, judgment criteria and relief methods. Through the analysis of this part, we hope to clarify the differences and similarities of many regulations, and lay a foundation for the third part to discuss the reference of Anglo-American law to the perfection of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. The third part is the reference of the relevant provisions of Anglo-American law to perfect the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. This part of the point, is the focus of the whole article and innovation. This part is divided into four sections. The first section introduces the current situation of anticipatory breach of contract in Chinese law and explains the shortcomings of the current provisions. The following three sections introduce the content that should be used for reference in classification form, judgment standard and relief method. The last section is a summary of the article, and draws the final conclusion of the article. That is, by studying the Anglo-American law, the 1980 United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale of goods and the 2004 General principles of International Commercial contracts, we hope to learn from the mature experience of advanced legislation and to promote the formation of a reasonable system of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. That is, the scientific system of scientific definition, scientific classification, scientific definition of anticipatory breach of contract, scientific limitation of judging standard of implied anticipatory breach of contract, reasonable and clear stipulation of remedy method of anticipatory breach of contract, especially implied anticipatory breach of contract. It also states that it should be centralized in the form of a special section of the law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)海洋大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6;D997.1;D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李薇,黃輝;論不安抗辯權(quán)與預(yù)期違約——兼談我國(guó)法中不安抗辯權(quán)制度的協(xié)調(diào)問(wèn)題[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2002年02期

2 吳志宇;預(yù)期違約制度新論[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);2003年03期

3 師曉丹;;淺析預(yù)期違約制度及其在我國(guó)的適用[J];黨史博采(理論);2009年01期

4 郭玉萍;;論《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售合同公約》中的預(yù)期違約制度[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年04期

5 吳志忠;;論國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同的預(yù)期違約制度[J];法學(xué)評(píng)論;2009年04期

6 宋強(qiáng);;論預(yù)期違約[J];法治研究;2009年12期

7 張偉麗;;《合同法》預(yù)期違約制度的立法缺陷與完善[J];工會(huì)論壇(山東省工會(huì)管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2009年05期

8 盧正;;淺析國(guó)際貨物貿(mào)易中的預(yù)期違約[J];國(guó)際市場(chǎng);2009年11期

9 范曉峰;論《合同法》預(yù)期違約與不安抗辯權(quán)制度存在的缺陷[J];河北法學(xué);2001年01期

10 王珍愚;合同法中的預(yù)期違約制度研究[J];河北法學(xué);2002年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2218425