【摘要】：我國(guó)在合同法總則部分與分則有名合同部分的任意解除權(quán)是為了實(shí)現(xiàn)法的公平、自由和效率原則和借鑒英美法系的效率違約制度和大陸法系任意解除權(quán)的內(nèi)涵規(guī)定,任意解除權(quán)一項(xiàng)特殊法定解除權(quán)僅可應(yīng)用于部分特殊的合同。只適用于某些特定的合同類型,不以對(duì)方違約為前提,但一般需要給對(duì)方一定賠償。享有任意解除權(quán)的主體也只是某些特定的當(dāng)事人。當(dāng)下我國(guó)對(duì)其研究主要是針對(duì)合同法分則的有關(guān)條文和部分有名合同而缺乏系統(tǒng)性、完整性,這樣法律規(guī)范就會(huì)出現(xiàn)不確定性致使當(dāng)事人不可準(zhǔn)確預(yù)估任意解除權(quán)的行使方式以及產(chǎn)生的法律后果,同時(shí)在司法實(shí)踐中也會(huì)出現(xiàn)適用問(wèn)題而最終無(wú)法實(shí)現(xiàn)任意解除權(quán)的價(jià)值。目前對(duì)任意解除權(quán)集中于應(yīng)然層面分析而且總體和系統(tǒng)研究上都為數(shù)不多。然而在現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中合同任意解除權(quán)行使中存在著很多問(wèn)題,如任意解除的濫用及任意解除行使中的不當(dāng)。本文對(duì)任意解除權(quán)的研究是在歸納整理前人成果的之上展開(kāi)的,以期探討其規(guī)制方法并提出相關(guān)立法建議。文中從理論上介紹和探討了任意解除權(quán)相關(guān)的理論問(wèn)題。首先將任意解除權(quán)與一般法定解除權(quán)對(duì)比后分析界定了其法律性質(zhì)。合同任意解除權(quán)是具有不可分型的形成權(quán),相對(duì)于一般形成權(quán)在給對(duì)方造成損失時(shí)一般應(yīng)給與一定的賠償。任意解除權(quán)的行使,表面上屬合法行使權(quán)利,本質(zhì)上卻具有違約的特征。任意解除權(quán)的設(shè)立是實(shí)質(zhì)上是基于對(duì)法的自由、效率和公平價(jià)值平衡。根據(jù)合同對(duì)法的價(jià)值追求的不同對(duì)任意解除權(quán)合同進(jìn)行相應(yīng)的分類,文中引用案例分析后發(fā)現(xiàn)合同任意解除權(quán)行使中存在著適用范圍、損害賠償范圍的不確定性和約定排除任意解除權(quán)等問(wèn)題。因此對(duì)合同任意解除權(quán)行進(jìn)行規(guī)制有著重要的理論和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。不同類型合同,行使任意解除權(quán)的主體和對(duì)象、行使方式、行使范圍和賠償損失的范圍均有所不同,不能統(tǒng)一制定一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn),需要分類討論。文中討論的重點(diǎn)是對(duì)任意解除權(quán)行使的規(guī)制。筆者從任意解除權(quán)行使中的各種問(wèn)題人手,探討其在行使主體、客體,行使時(shí)間和行使方式上相應(yīng)的規(guī)則方法,并提出相關(guān)的立法建議。在該權(quán)利的賠償范圍上應(yīng)區(qū)分為未履行和已經(jīng)部分履行而直接確定是賠償履行或者信賴?yán)鎿p失;未履行的僅賠償信賴?yán)鎿p失;而部分履行下,對(duì)已履行的部分賠償履行利益損失,對(duì)未履行部分則不需要賠償履行利益損失以區(qū)別于違約賠償而只須賠償信賴?yán)鎿p失。同時(shí)不同合同類型,賠償范圍也有所不同。
[Abstract]:In our country, the right of arbitrary rescission of the part of contract law in the general principle of contract law and the part of famous part of the subclause is for the purpose of realizing the fairness, freedom and efficiency principle of law, and drawing lessons from the system of efficiency breach of contract in common law system and the intension stipulation of civil law system of arbitrary rescission right. A special legal right of rescission can only be applied to some special contracts. It only applies to certain types of contract, not on the premise of breach of contract, but generally needs to compensate the other party. The subject who enjoys the right of arbitrary rescission is only certain parties. At present, the research on it in our country is mainly aimed at the relevant articles of the special provisions of the contract law and some famous contracts, but lack of systematicness and integrality. In this way, the uncertainty of the legal norms will lead to the uncertainty of the parties can not accurately estimate the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission and the legal consequences, at the same time, there will be problems in the judicial practice and the value of the right of arbitrary rescission can not be realized. At present, the power of arbitrary rescission is focused on the analysis of the ought level and few on the whole and the system. However, in real life, there are many problems in the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission, such as abuse of arbitrary rescission and improper exercise of arbitrary rescission. In this paper, the research on the right of arbitrary rescission is carried out on the basis of summing up the previous achievements, with a view to discussing the methods of its regulation and putting forward some relevant legislative suggestions. In this paper, the theoretical problems related to the right of arbitrary rescission are introduced and discussed theoretically. Firstly, the legal nature of arbitrary right of rescission is defined by comparing it with general legal right of rescission. The right of arbitrary rescission of contract is a kind of formation right which can not be classified, and it should be compensated when it causes damage to the other party. The exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission is legally exercised on the surface, but it has the characteristic of breach of contract in essence. The establishment of the right of arbitrary rescission is based on the balance of freedom, efficiency and fair value of law. According to the different value pursuit of the contract to the law, the contract of the right of arbitrary rescission is classified accordingly. The case analysis shows that there is a scope of application in the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission of the contract. The uncertainty of the scope of damages and the agreement to exclude the right of arbitrary rescission and so on. Therefore, it has important theoretical and practical significance to regulate the right to rescind the contract arbitrarily. Different types of contracts, the subject and object of exercising the right of arbitrary rescission, the way of exercise, the scope of exercise and the scope of compensation for losses are all different, so it is not possible to formulate a unified standard, which needs to be classified and discussed. The emphasis of this paper is on the regulation of the exercise of arbitrary rescission right. The author discusses the corresponding rules and methods in the exercise of subject, object, time and mode of exercise from various problems in the exercise of arbitrary rescission right, and puts forward relevant legislative suggestions. The scope of compensation for this right shall be divided into non-performance and partial performance, and shall be directly determined as compensation for performance or loss of reliance interest; failure to perform shall only compensate for loss of reliance interest; and under partial performance, It is necessary to compensate for the loss of performance interest for the part that has been performed and for the part that has not been performed to compensate for the loss of interest of performance in order to distinguish it from the compensation for breach of contract, but only to compensate for the loss of interest in trust. At the same time, different types of contracts, the scope of compensation is also different.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D923.6

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 覃丹鳳;;論合同的任意解除制度[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年06期

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

3 秦鐵錚;;勞動(dòng)者任意解除合同權(quán)新探[J];中國(guó)人力資源開(kāi)發(fā);2009年09期

4 劉勝利;;合同定作人任意解除權(quán)的法理分析[J];人民論壇;2010年11期

5 汪傳才;;旅游者行程前任意解約行為的若干法律問(wèn)題探析[J];旅游科學(xué);2013年03期

6 易可為;;建設(shè)工程合同的任意解除問(wèn)題研究[J];消費(fèi)導(dǎo)刊;2007年09期

7 周堅(jiān);;商事代理制度之探究——以委托人與受托人任意解除權(quán)為契機(jī)[J];改革與開(kāi)放;2014年09期

8 陳柳青;;淺議承攬合同定作人之任意解除權(quán)[J];理論觀察;2010年04期

9 崔建遠(yuǎn);龍俊;;委托合同的任意解除權(quán)及其限制——“上海盤起訴盤起工業(yè)案”判決的評(píng)釋[J];法學(xué)研究;2008年06期

10 馬忠法;馮凱;;委托合同任意解除的賠償責(zé)任[J];東方法學(xué);2009年03期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 周俊武;陳曦;;演藝經(jīng)紀(jì)合同之經(jīng)紀(jì)約、唱片約和詞曲約的法律屬性及相關(guān)問(wèn)題分析[A];2009中華全國(guó)律師協(xié)會(huì)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專業(yè)委員會(huì)年會(huì)暨中國(guó)律師知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)高層論壇論文集（上）[C];2009年

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 王晗;承攬合同任意解除權(quán)的兩個(gè)問(wèn)題[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2006年

2 武漢大學(xué)法學(xué)院 劉海峰;委托合同任意解除權(quán)若干問(wèn)題辨析[N];人民法院報(bào);2011年

3 李軍;定作人任意解除合同權(quán)的司法審查[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2013年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 莊武衡;預(yù)付式服務(wù)合同中消費(fèi)者任意解除權(quán)研究[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

2 王明慧;任意解除權(quán)研究[D];廣東財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

3 方黎;不定期租賃合同中任意解除權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

4 丁杏文;論委托合同的任意解除權(quán)[D];華東政法大學(xué);2016年

5 于濤;我國(guó)演藝經(jīng)紀(jì)制度法律研究[D];山東大學(xué);2016年

6 宋佳;建設(shè)工程合同發(fā)包人任意解除權(quán)研究[D];東南大學(xué);2016年

7 李婷婷;論合同任意解除權(quán)的規(guī)制[D];華中科技大學(xué);2015年

8 朱育兵;任意解除權(quán)研究[D];華東政法大學(xué);2011年

9 劉兆蓮;任意解除權(quán)研究[D];清華大學(xué);2006年

10 王文亮;我國(guó)合同法中的任意解除權(quán)問(wèn)題研究[D];南京大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2233966