论预期违约与不安抗辩权的共存与衔接
|
摘要
我国《合同法》同时设立了功能相似,存在交叉重合的不安抗辩权与预期违约。学界对于不安抗辩权和预期违约的取舍、二者的区别和衔接存在诸多不同的观点和论述。不安抗辩权与预期违约根本性质不同,二者不可互相替代。由于立法条件和技术的限制,我国《合同法》立法遗留了不少问题,主要是不安抗辩权与预期违约制度适用条件和范围未作明确区分,二者关系不明晰。立法的缺失导致司法实践中出现合同债权人在适用预期违约维权时陷入根本违约的情形。因此,在制度重构时必须对不安抗辩权和预期违约制度作调整和完善。
"Contract Law"has also established similar functions,and there are cross-coincident unease defense rights and expected breach of contract. There are many different views and arguments in the academic circles on the choice of unrest defense and the expectation of breach of contract, the difference and connection between the two. The unsafe defense right is different from the fundamental nature of the expected breach of contract, and the two cannot substitute each other. Due to legislative conditions and technical limitations, China's"Contract Law"legislation has left many problems, mainly because the uneasy defense rights and the conditions and scope of the expected breach of contract system are not clearly distinguished, the relationship between the two is not clear. The lack of legislation has led to the emergence of contractual creditors in judicial practice in the event of a default breach of contract when applying the expected breach of contract. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust and improve the system of unrest defense and anticipatory breach of contract in the reconstruction of the system.
"Contract Law"has also established similar functions,and there are cross-coincident unease defense rights and expected breach of contract. There are many different views and arguments in the academic circles on the choice of unrest defense and the expectation of breach of contract, the difference and connection between the two. The unsafe defense right is different from the fundamental nature of the expected breach of contract, and the two cannot substitute each other. Due to legislative conditions and technical limitations, China's"Contract Law"legislation has left many problems, mainly because the uneasy defense rights and the conditions and scope of the expected breach of contract system are not clearly distinguished, the relationship between the two is not clear. The lack of legislation has led to the emergence of contractual creditors in judicial practice in the event of a default breach of contract when applying the expected breach of contract. Therefore, it is necessary to adjust and improve the system of unrest defense and anticipatory breach of contract in the reconstruction of the system.
引文
[1]李永军.我国合同法是否需要独立的预期违约制度——对我国正在起草的合同法草案增加英美法预期违约制度的质疑[J].政法论坛:中国政法大学学报,1998(6).
[2]王利明.预期违约制度研究[J].政法论坛:中国政法大学学报,1995(2).
[3]韩桂军.预期违约制度与不安抗辩权比较研究——兼论69、94、108条的立法缺失[J].河北法学,2004,1,(1).
[3]韩世远.合同法总论(第三版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[4]刘凯湘.论合同法预期违约制度适用范围上的缺陷[J].法学杂志,2001(1).
[5]李茂年.预期违约法律问题探讨——兼评我国对预期违约的规定[J].对外经济贸易大学学报,2001(1).
[6]李先治.论预期违约法律制度[J].当代法学,2002(8).
[7]王珍愚.合同法中的预期违约制度研究[J].河北法学,2002(4).
[8]叶金强.我国合同法中的预期违约制度[J].南京大学学报,2002(4).
[9]张金海.预期违约与不安抗辩制度的界分与衔接[J].法学家,2010(3).
[10]李建星.不安抗辩权与预期违约制度完全区分论[J].政治与法律,2017(12).
[11]葛云松.期前违约规则若干基本概念探源[J].环球法律评论,2003(秋季号).
[12]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[2]王利明.预期违约制度研究[J].政法论坛:中国政法大学学报,1995(2).
[3]韩桂军.预期违约制度与不安抗辩权比较研究——兼论69、94、108条的立法缺失[J].河北法学,2004,1,(1).
[3]韩世远.合同法总论(第三版)[M].北京:法律出版社,2012.
[4]刘凯湘.论合同法预期违约制度适用范围上的缺陷[J].法学杂志,2001(1).
[5]李茂年.预期违约法律问题探讨——兼评我国对预期违约的规定[J].对外经济贸易大学学报,2001(1).
[6]李先治.论预期违约法律制度[J].当代法学,2002(8).
[7]王珍愚.合同法中的预期违约制度研究[J].河北法学,2002(4).
[8]叶金强.我国合同法中的预期违约制度[J].南京大学学报,2002(4).
[9]张金海.预期违约与不安抗辩制度的界分与衔接[J].法学家,2010(3).
[10]李建星.不安抗辩权与预期违约制度完全区分论[J].政治与法律,2017(12).
[11]葛云松.期前违约规则若干基本概念探源[J].环球法律评论,2003(秋季号).
[12]史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.