本文選題：合同解除 + 合同解除異議　； 參考：《海南大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：《合同法》第96條賦予了被解約方對(duì)解除權(quán)人的解除行為提出異議的權(quán)利,這是合同解除異議制度的雛形�！蹲罡呷嗣穹ㄔ宏P(guān)于適用中華人民共和國(guó)合同法若干問(wèn)題的解釋(二)》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱"《合同法解釋二》")第24條規(guī)定首次規(guī)定了異議期間,使合同解除異議權(quán)的行使成為可能。此兩條規(guī)定在司法實(shí)踐中為平衡合同雙方的合法權(quán)益與統(tǒng)一案件的裁量標(biāo)準(zhǔn)發(fā)揮了重大作用。但是,合同解除異議權(quán)制度在法律規(guī)定上仍然略顯粗糙,關(guān)于合同解除異議權(quán)制度的一系列問(wèn)題在法律規(guī)定上仍有很大的空白。為了增強(qiáng)合同解除異議制度的實(shí)用性,加深對(duì)合同解除異議制度的理解,筆者通過(guò)本文對(duì)合同解除異議制度提出新的思考角度,全文分為四個(gè)部分:第一部分是對(duì)合同解除異議權(quán)制度的存在的形成背景及制度價(jià)值進(jìn)行論述。設(shè)立合同解除異議制度的目的在于平衡合同當(dāng)事人的權(quán)益,即對(duì)合同解除權(quán)人行使合同解除權(quán)提出更高的要求,加強(qiáng)對(duì)被解約方利益的保護(hù)。第二部分是通過(guò)對(duì)合同解除異議權(quán)性質(zhì)學(xué)說(shuō)利弊的分析,為重新審視合同解除異議權(quán)的性質(zhì)提供一種新的思路。法律沒有對(duì)合同解除異議權(quán)作出細(xì)致的規(guī)定,在司法實(shí)踐中對(duì)于合同解除異議權(quán)的性質(zhì)如何界定存在很大的爭(zhēng)議。對(duì)于合同解除異議權(quán)的性質(zhì),理論界有請(qǐng)求權(quán)說(shuō)、形成反對(duì)權(quán)說(shuō)、程序法上的訴權(quán)說(shuō)。該部分通過(guò)對(duì)合同解除異議權(quán)性質(zhì)典型學(xué)說(shuō)的介紹,闡明各學(xué)說(shuō)的利弊,并以此為突破口,論證筆者對(duì)于合同解除異議制度的見解。第三部分是通過(guò)分析合同解除異議權(quán)行使過(guò)程中需要注意的問(wèn)題,為異議權(quán)適用中存在的問(wèn)題提供新的解決思路。本部分對(duì)合同解除異議權(quán)提起的方式、異議期間、提起合同解除異議的法律后果進(jìn)行分析,明確合同解除異議權(quán)在司法適用中存在的爭(zhēng)議,并針對(duì)此爭(zhēng)議問(wèn)題提出筆者的看法和觀點(diǎn)。第四部分是對(duì)異議權(quán)人逾期提起合同解除異議在法院審查過(guò)程中存在問(wèn)題的分析。在司法實(shí)踐中,法院對(duì)于逾期提起的合同解除異議采取不同的審查模式,導(dǎo)致截然不同的判決結(jié)果,損害了司法的公信力。本文通過(guò)對(duì)兩種審查模式的論證論述統(tǒng)一審查模式的重要性,并對(duì)該種審查模式提出建議。
[Abstract]:Article 96 of the contract Law gives the abrogated party the right to object to the dissolution of the person who has the right to rescind, This is the embryonic form of the system of dissent from the contract. Article 24 of the Supreme people's Court on the interpretation of certain issues concerning the Application of the contract Law of the people's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as "interpretation of contract Law II") provides for the first time a period of objection. Make possible the exercise of the right of dissent from the contract. These two provisions play an important role in balancing the legal rights and interests of both parties to the contract and unifying the discretion of cases in judicial practice. However, the system of the right to dissent from the contract is still slightly rough on the legal provisions, and there is still a great gap in the legal provisions on a series of issues concerning the system of dissenting rights of the rescission of the contract. In order to enhance the practicability of the dissent system of contract rescission and to deepen the understanding of the dissent system of contract rescission, the author puts forward a new angle of thinking on the dissent system of rescission of contract through this article. The paper is divided into four parts: the first part is to discuss the formation background and system value of the system of dissenting right of rescission of contract. The purpose of setting up the dissent system of contract rescission is to balance the rights and interests of the parties to the contract, that is to say, to put forward higher requirements for the party to exercise the right of rescission of the contract, and to strengthen the protection of the interests of the party to be dissolved. The second part is to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of the nature of the right to rescind the contract and to provide a new way of thinking to re-examine the nature of the right of dissent. The law does not make detailed provisions on the right to dissent from contract, and there is a great dispute about how to define the nature of the right to dissent from contract in judicial practice. As to the nature of the right of dissent from the contract, the theorists have the theory of the right of claim, the theory of the right of objection and the theory of the right of action in procedural law. This part expounds the advantages and disadvantages of each theory through the introduction of the typical theory of the nature of the right to dissent from the contract, and takes it as a breakthrough to demonstrate the author's opinion on the system of dissent from the termination of contract. The third part is to analyze the problems that should be paid attention to in the exercise of the right of dissent of contract, and to provide a new way to solve the problems existing in the application of the right of dissent. This part analyzes the legal consequences of the dissent of the contract during the period of dissent, and clarifies the disputes existing in the judicial application of the right to dissent from the contract. And put forward the author's views and viewpoints in view of this controversial issue. The fourth part is the analysis of the problems existing in the process of court review. In the judicial practice, the court adopts different examination mode to the challenge of the termination of the contract which is overdue, which leads to the different judgment result and damages the credibility of the judicature. This paper discusses the importance of unified examination model through the demonstration of two kinds of examination models, and puts forward some suggestions on this kind of examination mode.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：海南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 許冰梅;合同解除中的法律問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)律師;2000年08期

2 段超;簡(jiǎn)析合同解除的特點(diǎn)、條件和方式[J];中共青島市委黨校.青島行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年06期

3 詹恒清;合同解除制度有關(guān)問(wèn)題探討[J];中南民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(人文社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年S1期

4 欒志紅;關(guān)于繼續(xù)性合同的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];法學(xué)論壇;2002年05期

5 王春平;;這個(gè)租用合同可解除嗎[J];農(nóng)村新技術(shù);2008年11期

6 張諾諾;;合同解除的價(jià)值目標(biāo)[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年03期

7 孟繼超;;我國(guó)合同解除制度探討[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年04期

8 遲麗華;李盈霏;;合同監(jiān)管過(guò)程中的主要風(fēng)險(xiǎn)及防范對(duì)策研究[J];生產(chǎn)力研究;2012年11期

9 劉瑞華;;關(guān)于合同解除的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];學(xué)習(xí)與研究;1989年01期

10 王U，

本文編號(hào)：2053460