本文選題：預(yù)期違約 + 期前履行拒絕　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中，由于非即時(shí)清結(jié)合同在合同締結(jié)后履行期到來(lái)前往往有一段間隔期，這時(shí)合同當(dāng)事人就有可能基于自身利益或者其他客觀因素的考慮，在合同有效成立后至履行期限屆滿前拒絕履行合同義務(wù)或者存在不能履行合同義務(wù)的現(xiàn)實(shí)危險(xiǎn)。傳統(tǒng)民法對(duì)合同的保護(hù)主要體現(xiàn)在履行期限屆滿之后合同一方當(dāng)事人不履行合同義務(wù)給對(duì)方當(dāng)事人造成損失時(shí)應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)違約責(zé)任，但在合同實(shí)踐中，自合同成立后至合同履行期限屆至前，一方當(dāng)事人明確表示或用自己的行為來(lái)表示將不履行合同，往往也會(huì)給對(duì)方當(dāng)事人的期待利益構(gòu)成威脅。這時(shí)如果另一方當(dāng)事人不能及時(shí)獲得救濟(jì)，減少損失的話，就只能等待履行期限到來(lái)后才能追究對(duì)方的違約責(zé)任，這將不利于保護(hù)合同當(dāng)事人的合法利益。為了緩解這種嚴(yán)格的的規(guī)則帶來(lái)的不利后果，英國(guó)普通法逐漸發(fā)展出來(lái)一種規(guī)則即預(yù)期違約規(guī)則。1853年審理的霍契斯特訴德拉圖爾案中，法官確立了該規(guī)則，之后，該規(guī)則在一系列案例中不斷被運(yùn)用、發(fā)展，并被其他許多國(guó)家所吸收采納。美國(guó)合同法源于英國(guó)的合同普通法，預(yù)期違約規(guī)則被引進(jìn)美國(guó)合同法并得到了除馬薩諸塞州以外的美國(guó)各州的承認(rèn)，霍切斯特案確立的規(guī)則常常被援引適用。1949年，經(jīng)過(guò)長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的起草和討論，由美國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)和統(tǒng)一州法全國(guó)委員會(huì)正式發(fā)表了美國(guó)《統(tǒng)一商法典》，美國(guó)《統(tǒng)一商法典》在英國(guó)判例的基礎(chǔ)上，不僅將預(yù)期違約制度寫入了法典中，而且規(guī)定的更加具體和完善，其中《統(tǒng)一商法典》第2-610條規(guī)定了期前拒絕履行規(guī)則，對(duì)期前履行拒絕規(guī)則的構(gòu)成要件及法律后果做了詳細(xì)規(guī)定，而第2-609條確立了充分履約之保障的規(guī)則，作為期前履行拒絕規(guī)則的補(bǔ)充，在實(shí)務(wù)上有革新意義，《統(tǒng)一商法典》規(guī)定在美國(guó)僅適用于貨物買賣合同，但由美國(guó)法學(xué)會(huì)組織眾多學(xué)者、法官、律師編寫的《合同法重述（第二次）》則把預(yù)期違約規(guī)則上升為美國(guó)合同法上的一項(xiàng)普遍規(guī)則。1999年，在法學(xué)界許多民商法專家學(xué)者強(qiáng)烈呼吁下，我國(guó)《合同法》正式引入預(yù)期違約制度，完善了我國(guó)的違約制度體系，是我國(guó)合同立法史上的一大突破，但《合同法》對(duì)預(yù)期違約制度的規(guī)定和美國(guó)合同法中的預(yù)期違約制度相比存在許多的缺陷和不足。為了彌補(bǔ)這些缺陷與不足，筆者撰寫本文，以完善我國(guó)《合同法》預(yù)期違約制度為根本出發(fā)點(diǎn)，運(yùn)用比較分析的方法特別是現(xiàn)實(shí)案例比較的方法對(duì)該制度全面系統(tǒng)的研究，并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出完善我國(guó)《合同法》預(yù)期違約制度的設(shè)想，以期對(duì)完善我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度有所幫助。 我國(guó)許多學(xué)者對(duì)預(yù)期違約制度的起源發(fā)展有所研究，但對(duì)預(yù)期違約的概念進(jìn)行辨析的著述并不多見(jiàn)，筆者在本文對(duì)預(yù)期違約概念進(jìn)行辨析得出預(yù)期違約制度的存在與發(fā)展的基礎(chǔ)是合同一方當(dāng)事人在履行期屆至前的拒絕履行行為�，F(xiàn)在雖有一部分著述對(duì)預(yù)期違約作比較研究，但大多是在理論層面，鮮有著述通過(guò)現(xiàn)實(shí)案例進(jìn)行比較研究。判例法是美國(guó)合同法的核心環(huán)節(jié)，通過(guò)現(xiàn)實(shí)案例進(jìn)行比較研究更有說(shuō)服力，且更容易發(fā)現(xiàn)問(wèn)題，從而解決問(wèn)題。所以，筆者在本文通過(guò)案例比較分析法對(duì)中美預(yù)期違約制度進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的比較研究。具體來(lái)說(shuō)，我國(guó)關(guān)于預(yù)期違約的通說(shuō)一般將預(yù)期違約制度分為明示預(yù)期違約與默示預(yù)期違約，而美國(guó)合同法的預(yù)期違約規(guī)則包括期前履行拒絕規(guī)則與充分履約之保障規(guī)則。明示預(yù)期違約與期前履行拒絕規(guī)則相似，但本文通過(guò)對(duì)焦點(diǎn)問(wèn)題一致的中國(guó)案例與美國(guó)案例進(jìn)行比較分析，得出我國(guó)明示預(yù)期違約存在界定不明，構(gòu)成要件和救濟(jì)方式不明確等問(wèn)題，，同時(shí)我國(guó)合同法沒(méi)有規(guī)定預(yù)期違約的撤回制度，這不符合我國(guó)合同法的合同自由和鼓勵(lì)交易的原則，由此筆者針對(duì)這些問(wèn)題提出了一些完善建議；同樣，對(duì)于默示預(yù)期違約，筆者將之與充分履約之保障規(guī)則相比較，得出默示預(yù)期違約同樣存在界定不明、規(guī)定冗余重復(fù)、救濟(jì)方式不一等問(wèn)題，但其構(gòu)成要件規(guī)定不一，標(biāo)準(zhǔn)難以確定問(wèn)題尤為重要，筆者認(rèn)為可參照美國(guó)合同法中的充分履約之保障規(guī)則對(duì)其加以完善。
[Abstract]:In real life, because the non immediate settlement contract has a period of interval before the contract is concluded, the parties to the contract may be based on their own interests or other objective factors, and refuse to perform their contractual obligations or do not fulfill the contract meaning before the contract is valid until the expiration of the term of performance. The protection of the contract in traditional civil law is mainly reflected in the liability for breach of contract when one party does not fulfill the contract obligation to the other party after the expiration of the term of execution, but in the practice of the contract, one party clearly expresses or uses it from the end of the contract to the term of the contract performance. If the other party can not get the relief in time and reduce the loss, the other party can only wait for the deadline for the performance of the other party to investigate the party's liability for breach of contract. This will be not conducive to the protection of the legitimate interests of the parties to the contract. To mitigate the adverse consequences of this strict rule, the British ordinary law gradually developed a rule, the.1853 case of the expected breach of contract, in the case of La Tour, the judge established the rule, and then the rule was used in a series of cases, developed, and absorbed by many other countries. The contract law of the state is derived from the common law of the United Kingdom, which is expected to be introduced into the United States contract law and recognized by the states other than Massachusetts. The rules established by the Chester case are often invoked for.1949 years. After a long period of drafting and discussion, the United States law society and the unified State Law National Committee formally issued the rules. The United Commercial Code of the United States and the United States Code of the United States, on the basis of the case of the United Kingdom, not only put the system of anticipatory breach of contract into the code of law, but also make it more specific and perfect, in which article 2-610 of the unified Commercial Code stipulates the refusal to perform the rules before the period, and makes a detailed account of the elements and legal consequences of the refusal rules before the period. The rules for the guarantee of full compliance are established in article 2-609. As a supplement to the refusal rules of the previous period, it is practical and innovative. The unified Commercial Code stipulates that the United States is only applicable to the sale of goods in the United States, but the United States law association organizes many scholars, judges, and lawyers to rewrite the contract law (second). The rules of breach of contract have risen to a general rule in the American Contract Law.1999. In the strong appeal of many civil and commercial law experts and scholars in the law circle, the contract law of China has formally introduced the system of anticipatory breach of contract and perfected the system of breach of contract in our country. It is a breakthrough in the history of contract legislation in China, but the contract law stipulates the regulation of the system of anticipatory breach of contract. The system of anticipatory breach of contract in the American contract law has many defects and shortcomings. In order to make up for these defects and shortcomings, the author writes this article to perfect our country "Contract Law > anticipatory breach of contract system" as the fundamental starting point, and use comparative analysis method, especially the method of real case comparison, to study the comprehensive system of the system, and here On the basis of this, we put forward the idea of perfecting the expected breach of contract law in our country, in order to improve our system of anticipatory breach of contract.
Many scholars in our country have studied the origin and development of the system of anticipatory breach of contract, but there are few writings on the concept of anticipatory breach of contract. In this paper, the author differentiates the concept of anticipatory breach of contract and concludes that the basis of the existence and development of the system of anticipatory breach of contract is the refusal performance of one party in the contract. Although there is a part of a comparative study of the expected breach of contract, most of them are in the theoretical level. There are few writings on the comparative study through practical cases. Case law is the core link of the United States contract law. It is more convincing and more easy to find out the problems through practical cases. The case comparative analysis method is used to make a detailed comparative study of the system of anticipatory breach of contract between China and the United States. Specifically, the general theory of anticipatory breach of contract in our country generally divides the expected default system into explicit anticipatory breach of contract and implied anticipatory breach of contract, while the expected breach rules of the United States contract law include the guarantee rules for the performance of refusal rules and full compliance. It shows that the expected breach of contract is similar to the refusal rule before the period, but through the comparison and analysis of the Chinese case with the United States case, which is consistent with the focus issues, this article draws a conclusion that there are some problems in our country's explicit anticipatory breach of contract, the elements and the way of relief are not clear. In accordance with the principle of freedom of contract and encouraging transaction in the contract law of China, the author puts forward some perfect suggestions on these problems. As for the implied breach of contract, the author compares it with the guarantee rules of full compliance, and draws a conclusion that the implied anticipatory breach of contract is unidentified, redundant duplication, and remedies are different. But the constitution is different, the standard is difficult to determine the problem is particularly important. I think it can be improved by referring to the guarantee rules of the full implementation of the United States contract law.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6;D971.2

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 羅佩華;;淺談我國(guó)合同法中的預(yù)期違約制度[J];北京宣武紅旗業(yè)余大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年03期

2 鄔正龍;;預(yù)期違約之合同解除與保證人之責(zé)任承擔(dān)[J];和田師范�？茖W(xué)校學(xué)報(bào);2011年05期

3 徐檢波;;論《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷售合同公約》與我國(guó)《合同法》中的預(yù)期違約[J];湖州師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

4 胡雙雙;;合同解除若干問(wèn)題的研究[J];連云港職業(yè)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年02期

5 ;[J];;年期

6 ;[J];;年期

7 ;[J];;年期

8 ;[J];;年期

9 ;[J];;年期

10 ;[J];;年期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前2條

1 潘公明;;論不安抗辯權(quán)制度[A];中國(guó)民商法實(shí)務(wù)論壇論文集[C];2004年

2 程祺;;小議不安抗辯權(quán)[A];中國(guó)合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 蔣 瓊 高蘭英;完善我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度之探討[N];人民法院報(bào);2002年

2 馬 騫;講究效益是預(yù)期違約制度之精髓[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

3 吳宗華;淺談合同法上的預(yù)期違約制度[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2009年

4 孫麗 單位：大慶市中級(jí)人民法院;論默示預(yù)期違約的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[N];法制日?qǐng)?bào);2001年

5 金立安 周連勇;“默示預(yù)期違約”應(yīng)界定[N];人民法院報(bào);2000年

6 單良;從一起租賃合同糾紛案看預(yù)期違約制度的適用[N];廣西政法報(bào);2002年

7 劉彤燕;淺談我國(guó)合同法中預(yù)期違約制度的若干問(wèn)題[N];金融時(shí)報(bào);2005年

8 高欣;預(yù)期違約制度在國(guó)際貿(mào)易中的應(yīng)用[N];寧波日?qǐng)?bào);2009年

9 李娟;默示預(yù)期違約的處理[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2005年

10 陳少君;預(yù)期違約應(yīng)當(dāng)賠償損失[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 楊少波;預(yù)期違約制度淺析[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

2 魏紹杰;預(yù)期違約制度的中美比較研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2012年

3 趙長(zhǎng)云;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[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2011年

4 劉建霞;比較法視野下的我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度[D];中國(guó)社會(huì)科學(xué)院研究生院;2011年

5 程楠;我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度之重構(gòu)[D];中央民族大學(xué);2011年

6 樸青龍;完善我國(guó)預(yù)期違約制度的思考[D];延邊大學(xué);2011年

7 陳麗君;論我國(guó)稅收之債的預(yù)期違約制度[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2012年

8 李冀;《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷售合同公約》預(yù)期違約制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

9 鄒本進(jìn);默示預(yù)期違約及其救濟(jì)制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2003年

10 董亮;不安抗辯權(quán)和預(yù)期違約制度比較研究[D];廣西師范大學(xué);2012年

本文編號(hào)：1882398