發(fā)布時間：2018-05-27 22:29

  本文選題：委托合同任意解除權(quán) + 有償、無償委托��； 參考：《上海師范大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：委托合同任意解除權(quán)制度來源于羅馬法,其基礎(chǔ)一般是基于友情、私人關(guān)系,收取報酬則被認為與這種傳統(tǒng)發(fā)展出來的契約方式的本質(zhì)精神相沖突。大陸法系中追求、延續(xù)的委托制度的無償特性,委托合同雙方的信賴關(guān)系,都是因此起源而來。隨著社會經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展,有償委托逐漸盛行,委托合同任意解除權(quán)濫用現(xiàn)象逐漸增加。為了限制有償委托中任意解除權(quán)的使用、維護合同雙方的合法權(quán)益,各國民法典多對委托合同任意解除權(quán)的行使制定了相關(guān)的法規(guī)、解釋予以限制。我國《合同法》第410條規(guī)定了委托合同的任意解除權(quán),即委托人或者受托人可以隨時解除委托合同,因解除合同給對方造成損失的,除不可歸責(zé)于該當(dāng)事人的事由以外,應(yīng)當(dāng)賠償損失,其目的在于保護作為委托合同基礎(chǔ)的當(dāng)事人間信任關(guān)系。但該規(guī)定在司法解釋中,未對其作出詳細的司法解釋。但是由于其規(guī)定過于寬泛,既沒有區(qū)分有償委托和無償委托,也沒有限制解除合同的時間,委托人可“隨時”解除合同。關(guān)于雙方當(dāng)事人約定拋棄任意解除權(quán)的問題,也沒有明確對其效力加以認定。因為沒有限制性規(guī)定,在現(xiàn)實生活中,出現(xiàn)了委托合同當(dāng)事人大量濫用任意解除權(quán)的現(xiàn)象。由于近年委托合同類型和合同利益的繁雜化造成該任意解除制權(quán)的立法背景發(fā)生變化,導(dǎo)致制度目的不達,對信任關(guān)系的保護片面化,權(quán)利被濫用。鑒于任意解除權(quán)本身就是一個舶來品,比較法上對上述問題的處理方式值得借鑒。通過各國的立法例比較,可知限制委托合同任意解除權(quán),可從多方面加以規(guī)制。如瑞士民法典中的時間限制,即規(guī)定委托事項完成后的時間內(nèi)不允許行使任意解除權(quán);意定限制,允許當(dāng)事人雙方約定,拋棄委托合同的任意解除權(quán),概因任意解除權(quán)非強制性法律規(guī)定,而是任意性法律規(guī)定;適用范圍限制,譬如德國,就將委托合同任意解除權(quán)限制在無償委托合同中,有償委托不得適用,等等。明確我國對委托合同任意解除權(quán)的已存在的規(guī)制問題,可以因弊生問,從而更有針對性地尋找解決其規(guī)范條文細致不足的方法;運用比較法分析存在問題,能夠積極吸取合理的法律規(guī)范,更好地為委托合同任意解除權(quán)的細化、限制提供有效的、更有借鑒意義有實踐可能性的方式。
[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.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 賀劍;;合同解除異議制度研究[J];中外法學(xué);2013年03期

2 崔建遠;;中國債法的現(xiàn)狀與未來[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2013年01期

3 陸青;;合同解除效果與違約責(zé)任——以請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)為視角之檢討[J];北方法學(xué);2012年06期

4 崔建遠;;解除效果折衷說之評論[J];法學(xué)研究;2012年02期

5 崔建遠;;合同解除探微[J];江淮論壇;2011年06期

6 崔建遠;;合同一般法定解除條件探微[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報);2011年06期

7 崔建遠;;論歸責(zé)原則與侵權(quán)責(zé)任方式的關(guān)系[J];中國法學(xué);2010年02期

8 周江洪;;風(fēng)險負擔(dān)規(guī)則與合同解除[J];法學(xué)研究;2010年01期

9 馬春元;;任意解除權(quán)的規(guī)制問題探討——兼論合同解除制度的重構(gòu)[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年06期

10 崔建遠;吳光榮;;我國合同法上解除權(quán)的行使規(guī)則[J];法律適用;2009年11期

相關(guān)重要報紙文章 前2條

1 閔俊偉;;委托合同任意解除權(quán)的特約放棄[N];人民法院報;2012年

2 謝慶;;細微之處見精神[N];法制日報;2004年

，

本文編號：1944066