預(yù)期違約制度的法律問(wèn)題研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-03-27 15:15
本文選題：預(yù)期違約 切入點(diǎn)：信賴?yán)?/strong> 出處：《蘇州大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文
【摘要】：預(yù)期違約制度是英美法系所特有的一項(xiàng)法律制度,它是為了避免當(dāng)事人一方在合同有效成立后至履行期限屆滿前,不履行或不能履行合同的主要義務(wù)而建立起來(lái)的一項(xiàng)法律救濟(jì)制度。 我國(guó)的預(yù)期違約制度,既吸收了英美法系的預(yù)期違約制度又借鑒了大陸法系的不安抗辯權(quán)制度,在我國(guó)立法上屬一大進(jìn)步,彌補(bǔ)了我國(guó)合同法立法上的空白。但由于《合同法》倉(cāng)促出臺(tái),在引入兩大制度的同時(shí),并沒(méi)有將二者很好地對(duì)接和融合,致使在法律適用過(guò)程中造成重疊和沖突。筆者鑒于此,對(duì)我國(guó)的預(yù)期違約制度進(jìn)行粗淺的研究。本文從預(yù)期違約制度的歷史來(lái)源、概念特征,以及與不安抗辯權(quán)制度相比較的基礎(chǔ)上,詳盡地介紹了我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度的法律現(xiàn)狀,重點(diǎn)分析了其不完善的地方。我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度中存在的不足之處,主要體現(xiàn)在：其一,《合同法》94條、108條設(shè)置不合理,缺乏系統(tǒng)性并且表述前后不一致；其二,預(yù)期違約制度存在適用范圍認(rèn)定不明確,與不安抗辯權(quán)相互沖突、相互矛盾；其三,法律救濟(jì)規(guī)定不合理。針對(duì)這些不足之處,本文在結(jié)合他人已有觀點(diǎn)的基礎(chǔ)之上,從以下幾個(gè)方面提出自己幾點(diǎn)粗淺的建議與對(duì)策：第一,將預(yù)期違約制度相關(guān)的法律條文予以整合并進(jìn)行統(tǒng)一表述；第二,明確預(yù)期違約制度的構(gòu)成要件并適當(dāng)擴(kuò)大不安抗辯權(quán)的適用范圍,將不安抗辯權(quán)納入到預(yù)期違約制度當(dāng)中；第三,用規(guī)范、統(tǒng)一的語(yǔ)言表述預(yù)期違約的救濟(jì)方式；針對(duì)明示和默示兩種不同的預(yù)期違約形態(tài),用不同救濟(jì)的方式分別規(guī)定；明示預(yù)期違約中增加預(yù)期違約方撤回權(quán)；明確預(yù)期違約損害賠償?shù)姆秶?根據(jù)三種不同情形分別確定損害賠償?shù)臄?shù)額。
[Abstract]:The system of anticipatory breach of contract is a special legal system in Anglo-American law system, which is designed to avoid one of the parties from forming the contract effectively until the expiration of the period of performance. A system of legal remedies established by default or failure to perform the principal obligations of a contract. The system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country, which not only absorbs the system of anticipatory breach of contract of common law system, but also draws lessons from the system of uneasy defense right of civil law system, which is a great progress in legislation of our country. It has made up for the blank in the legislation of contract law of our country. However, due to the hasty introduction of the contract Law, the two systems have not been well connected and merged while the two systems have been introduced. In view of this, the author makes a brief study on the system of anticipatory breach of contract in China. And on the basis of comparing with the system of uneasiness right of defense, this paper introduces in detail the present legal situation of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country, and emphatically analyzes its imperfections, the shortcomings of the system of anticipatory breach of contract in our country. The main results are as follows: first, Article 108 of contract Law is unreasonable, lacking of systematicness and inconsistent expression; second, the system of anticipatory breach of contract is not clear in its scope of application, which conflicts with the right of uneasiness to defend; third, the system of anticipatory breach of contract is inconsistent with each other. The provisions of legal relief are unreasonable. In view of these deficiencies, this paper, on the basis of combining the existing views of others, puts forward some superficial suggestions and countermeasures from the following aspects: first, The relevant legal provisions of anticipatory breach of contract system should be integrated and unified; second, the constitution of anticipatory breach of contract system should be clearly defined and the scope of application of the right of uneasiness defense should be expanded appropriately, and the right of uneasiness defense should be included in the system of anticipatory breach of contract; Third, express the remedy mode of anticipatory breach in the standard and unified language; stipulate the two different forms of anticipatory breach of contract explicitly and tacitly, and add the right to withdraw the anticipatory party in the explicit anticipatory breach of contract; The scope of expected damages for breach of contract is defined and the amount of damages is determined according to three different circumstances.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前9條
1 彭學(xué)龍;朱笑顏;;兩大法系合同法在預(yù)期違約制度上存在差異的原因初探[J];財(cái)經(jīng)政法資訊;2001年02期
2 吳偉智;試析不安抗辯權(quán)與預(yù)期違約——兼論我國(guó)合同法中的預(yù)期違約制度[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2002年08期
3 劉凱湘,聶孝紅;論《合同法》預(yù)期違約制度適用范圍上的缺陷[J];法學(xué)雜志;2000年01期
4 宋強(qiáng);;論預(yù)期違約[J];法治研究;2009年12期
5 左連凱;;預(yù)期違約制度的理論基礎(chǔ)和法律價(jià)值[J];西北工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年04期
6 韓世遠(yuǎn);崔建遠(yuǎn);;先期違約與中國(guó)合同法[J];法學(xué)研究;1993年03期
7 齊明;;試論合同法中預(yù)期違約制度的完善[J];社科縱橫;2007年02期
8 馬開(kāi)軒;;論預(yù)期違約與不安抗辯的沖突與取舍[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年04期
9 王利明;預(yù)期違約制度若干問(wèn)題研究[J];政法論壇;1995年02期
，本文編號(hào)：1672062
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/hetongqiyue/1672062.html
最近更新
教材專著
