【摘要】：主流觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為,我國(guó)《合同法》第九十四條規(guī)定的法定解除合同,只有守約方才有權(quán)行使,違約方不享有據(jù)此規(guī)定解除合同的權(quán)利。司法實(shí)踐中,存在為數(shù)不少的違約方中途違約并要求解除合同的案件,如果對(duì)違約方違約的主觀動(dòng)機(jī)和具體情形一律不作區(qū)分,完全否定違約方的合同解除權(quán),可能會(huì)造成個(gè)案的不公和資源的浪費(fèi),使合同雙方當(dāng)事人的利益失衡,有違公平與誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則。本論文的寫(xiě)作正是緣于司法實(shí)踐中的一個(gè)案件而引發(fā)的思考。論文在內(nèi)容結(jié)構(gòu)上共分五章,第一章為合同解除權(quán)的現(xiàn)行法規(guī)定梳理,主要介紹了我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律特別是《合同法》關(guān)于合同解除的規(guī)定。第二章從合同內(nèi)在價(jià)值、誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則、實(shí)際履行的局限性、法律解釋、司法實(shí)踐五個(gè)角度,論證賦予違約方合同解除權(quán)具有正當(dāng)性。在合同內(nèi)在價(jià)值層面,賦予違約方合同解除權(quán)是合同自由、公平、效率價(jià)值的體現(xiàn)。從誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則角度,違約方行使合同解除權(quán)符合誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則謀求各方利益平衡的內(nèi)涵。從實(shí)際履行的局限性角度,實(shí)際履行作為違約責(zé)任的承擔(dān)方式,具有履行成本高、執(zhí)行困難以及社會(huì)效率損失的缺陷。從法律解釋的角度,雖然在我國(guó)《合同法》中沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定違約方行使法定解除權(quán)的法律依據(jù),但是也沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定違約方不能行使法定解除權(quán),而且《合同法》相關(guān)條款為違約方行使合同解除權(quán)提供了間接適用空間。從司法實(shí)踐角度,通過(guò)對(duì)賦予違約方合同解除權(quán)的典型案例新宇公司訴馮玉梅商鋪買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同糾紛一案的分析,論證賦予違約方合同解除權(quán)在我國(guó)的司法實(shí)踐中得到了一定程度的承認(rèn)和執(zhí)行。第三章著重界定違約方合同解除權(quán)的行使條件,合同嚴(yán)守是原則,合同解除是例外,民法的誠(chéng)實(shí)信用原則不允許當(dāng)事人因違約而獲利,盡管賦予違約方合同解除權(quán)有其正當(dāng)性,但違約方無(wú)解除權(quán)是基本原則,因此必須嚴(yán)格限定違約方行使合同解除權(quán)的適用條件,只有在特定情形下才能賦予違約方合同解除權(quán),即同時(shí)符合合同標(biāo)的物為種類(lèi)物、繼續(xù)履行存在障礙、違約方?jīng)]有過(guò)錯(cuò)這三個(gè)條件。第四章論述違約方行使合同解除權(quán)的方式,違約方解除合同的權(quán)利在性質(zhì)上屬于請(qǐng)求權(quán),且適用于特定的條件,在現(xiàn)行法律沒(méi)有明確規(guī)定的情況下,必須通過(guò)向法院提起訴訟的方式行使,如此才能體現(xiàn)對(duì)違約方行使合同解除權(quán)的嚴(yán)格限制,有利于糾紛的公正解決和終局處理。第五章論述違約方解除合同的違約損害賠償責(zé)任,賦予違約方特定情形下解除合同的權(quán)利,需要違約方對(duì)守約方承擔(dān)違約損害賠償責(zé)任,以充分補(bǔ)償守約方因其違約所遭受的損失。違約方解除合同的損害賠償范圍應(yīng)為守約方因違約方的違約行為所遭受的全部損失,即完全賠償原則,但應(yīng)受確定性規(guī)則、可預(yù)見(jiàn)性規(guī)則、減少損失規(guī)則、損益相抵規(guī)則的限制。
[Abstract]:The mainstream point of view is that the statutory rescission of the contract stipulated in Article 94 of the contract Law of China shall only be exercised by the parties who abide by the contract, and the breaching party does not have the right to terminate the contract accordingly. In judicial practice, there are quite a number of cases in which the breaching party breaks the contract midway and demands the rescission of the contract. If no distinction is made between the subjective motive and the specific circumstances of the breach of contract, the breaching party's right to terminate the contract is completely denied. It may lead to unfair cases and waste of resources, make the interests of both parties to the contract unbalanced, and violate the principles of fairness and good faith. The writing of this thesis is just a reflection caused by a case in judicial practice. The paper is divided into five chapters in content structure. The first chapter is about the current law of the right of rescission of contract. It mainly introduces the current law of our country, especially the provisions of contract law on the dissolution of contract. The second chapter from the contract intrinsic value, the good faith principle, the actual performance limitation, the legal explanation, the judicial practice five angles, demonstrates gives the breach party contract rescission right to have the legitimacy. At the level of contract intrinsic value, giving the breaching party the right to terminate the contract is the embodiment of contract freedom, fairness and efficiency value. From the perspective of the principle of good faith, the breaching party's right to rescind the contract conforms to the principle of good faith to seek the connotation of balancing the interests of all parties. From the point of view of the limitation of actual performance, as a way to assume the responsibility of breach of contract, has the defects of high cost of performance, difficulty of execution and loss of social efficiency. From the angle of legal interpretation, although there is no clear legal basis for the breaching party to exercise the statutory right of rescission in the contract Law of our country, there is also no clear stipulation that the breaching party cannot exercise the statutory right of rescission. Moreover, the relevant articles of contract Law provide indirect application space for breaching party to exercise the right of rescission of contract. From the angle of judicial practice, through the analysis of the case of Xinyu Company v. Feng Yumei Shop Sale contract dispute, the typical case of abrogation of contract is given to the breaching party. The argument gives the breaching party the right to rescind the contract to a certain extent in the judicial practice of our country. The third chapter focuses on defining the conditions under which the breaching party's right to rescind the contract is exercised, the strict observance of the contract is the principle, and the dissolution of the contract is the exception. The principle of good faith in civil law does not allow the party concerned to profit from the breach of contract, although it is justified to grant the party the right to rescind the contract. However, the non-rescission right of the breaching party is the basic principle, so it is necessary to strictly define the applicable conditions for the breaching party to exercise the right to rescind the contract. Only under certain circumstances can the breaching party be given the right to rescind the contract, that is, the subject matter of the contract is the kind of thing that accords with the contract subject matter. There is an obstacle to continuing performance, and the defaulting party is not at fault. The fourth chapter discusses the way for the breaching party to exercise the right to rescind the contract. The right of the breaching party to terminate the contract belongs to the right of claim in nature and is applicable to specific conditions. In order to reflect the strict restriction on the breaching party's right to rescind the contract, it is necessary to bring the lawsuit to the court, which is conducive to the just settlement and final settlement of the dispute. The fifth chapter discusses the breaching party to cancel the contract for breach of contract damage liability, give the breaching party the right to cancel the contract under the specific circumstances, need the breaching party to assume the breach of contract damage compensation liability, To compensate fully for the damage suffered by the compliance party as a result of its breach of contract. The scope of indemnity for breach of contract by breaching party shall be all losses suffered by the defaulting party as a result of breach of contract, that is, the principle of full compensation, but shall be subject to the rules of certainty, predictability and reduction of loss, The limitation of the profit and loss offset rule.
【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】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 崔建遠(yuǎn);;合同解除探微[J];江淮論壇;2011年06期

，

本文編號(hào)：2353757