给付障碍体系比较研究
|
摘要
所谓给付障碍(Leistungsstoerungen)是指债务人不依债之本质履行债法上的义务。其对于违约责任来说有着十分重要的意义,因为对于给付障碍的处理不同会导致违约责任的承担方式以及构成要件的不同。现在世界上各国的立法对于这个问题主要存在着两种不同的立法例,一种是二元结构立法,一种是一元结构立法。采取二元结构立法一般是大陆法的一些国家,而在英美法国家以及一些国际条约中则采取的是一元结构立法。
二元给付障碍体系的特征在于将物之瑕疵担保责任外化于一般给付障碍体系之外,形成一种不同于一般违约责任的合同责任。这种做法可以追溯到罗马法,并借助着法国法,德国法的影响力传播到了现今主要的大陆法国家和地区的立法之中。就连2002年改革后的英国法也吸收了这种做法的合理成份。
罗马法开创了给付障碍二元结构体系的先河。这种创造性成就的起点就是对于消费者,承租人等特殊对象的特殊关怀。特别关怀的手段就是对于这些日常生活中最常见的交易制定特殊的规则,为消费者,承租人等特殊对象提供更多的救济方式,同时在责任的要件上给予适当的放宽。罗马法中找不到英国法中“买者自慎”的观念,在衡量促进经济发展与维护社会公平的价值冲突的时候罗马法为大陆法国家开创了一个很好的先例,可以说这种价值选择直到现代也没有过时。
罗马法的这种特征在法国法中得到了延续,可以说法国法比较忠实地继承了罗马法的规定。法国法中的物之瑕疵担保的规定基本上是罗马法规则的翻版。而真正对于法国法一般违约体系产生重大影响的是法定的瑕疵担保责任。因为如果存在当事人明示或者默示的物之瑕疵担保的话,如果交付的标的物有瑕疵,适用的就是有关一般的违约责任。法国法中法定的物之瑕疵担保的规定与罗马法中的市政官告示的规定如出一辙,但是由于法国法在一般违约责任的规定与罗马法已不太一样,所以法国法中物之瑕疵担保责任的独立性呈现出了一些不同于罗马法的特征。如在救济的方式,救济的范围,解除权等方面就有了区别于罗马法的特征。
可以说德国人借助其抽象的思维方式将罗马法的规定加以了升华,这种升华不仅仅在于对物之瑕疵担保责任规则的设定上,还表现在了对于罗马法违约形态的归纳和总结之上。在物之瑕疵担保责任的规则方面,德国旧债法将其完全从一般给付障碍体系剥离了出来,在体系上做到了自我圆满,从而将罗马法的传统推到了极致,这是法国法都没有做到的。而在一般违约形态的方面,德国旧债法根据罗马法中的一条法谚,将给付不能认定为给付障碍体系的核心概念,采用“扳道叉式”的原因分类法,按照违约的原因将违约形态分为给付不能,给付迟延两种。这种对于罗马
Leistungsstoerungen means that the obligor does not perform his duties according to the contract. It means a lot to the breach liability, for the ways and conditions are different according to the way we deal with it. The legal examples of different countries are divided into two systems, firstly the system of dualism, and secondly the unified system, the continental countries almost take former one, and the anglo-america countries and many international treaties almost take the latter one.The characteristic of dualism system is that liabilities of warranty of quality differs from the liabilities of common leistungsstoerungen system, and forms a kind of independent contract liability. This kind of legislation can date back to Roman law, through French law and German law it spread its influence into the main nations and districts of continental law. Even the English law after 2002 reform digested some ideas of this kind of legislation.Roman law created the dualism system of leistungsstoerungen. This creative achievement started with the idea that cared more for customers and lessee. And this kind of special protection was realized by setting special regulations for most familiar transactions in daily life, providing more remedies for special people like customers and lessee, and making suitable concessions in the conditions of liability. In Roman law we can not find any regulation that reflected the idea of "Caveat Emptor" that was very popular in English law. It can be said that Roman law set a good example for countries that accept continental law in keeping balance between economic growth and social justice, and this choice of value is still not out-dated nowadays.The characteristic of Roman law was kept in French law, the regulations of warranty of quality in French law were almost identical with that of Roman law. And what really mattered in the system of leistungsstoerungen was the liability of warranty of quality set by law, for if there were some agreements about the quality of the objects, whether express or implied, between the parties, the regulations that applied were that of the common liabilities of breach. The regulations of the liability of warranty of quality set by law in French law were nearly identical with that of Roman law, but because the regulations of common liability of breach were totally different, the independence of
liability of warranty of quality presented another face in the manner, scope of remedy, the right of rescission and so on.The Germans sublimed the regulations of Roman law by their abstract thinking pattern, this kind of sublimation relied not only on the regulations of warranty of quality, but also on the summarization and conclusion of forms of breach of Roman law. On one hand, former obligational law of German peeled the regulations of warranty of quality off the common system of leistungsstoerungen, made it totally independent, and by doing so it pushed the tradition of Roman law to a new apex; on the other hand, according to a maxim of Roman law former obligational law of German used "impossibility of performance" as its core definition, and divided the breach into three forms: impossibility of performance n delay and positive breach according to the cause of breach. The rules of sales, lease and some special kinds of contracts are quite different from the rules of impossibility of performance > delay and positive breach. So we can say that liability of warranty of quality formed a totally independent kind of liability that differed from the common liability of breach of contract. This division made great contribution to former German obligational law. Because of the independence of the liability of warranty of quality, breach of contract did not lead to the same liability under all circumstances. Former obligational law provided different remedies for different parties. But just because so, the common system of leistungsstoerungen can not include all situations of breach, and the German courts found it so difficult to deal with this kind of problems, this is why German modified its obligational law in 2002.On 1 January 2002, the most sweeping reform that has ever affected the code entered into force. It has remoulded large parts of the German law of obligations. At the same time, it has led to a deep division among legal scholars in Germany. For, on one hand, the reform was hailed as having been overdue and as bringing some of the most outdated parts of the BGB into line with modern international developments. On the other hand, there has been fierce criticism focusing, in particular, on the extraordinarily tight schedule for forcing through such fundamental changes. It might have been better, so it was maintained, to have an old code rather than a bad and ill-prepared one. It is not easy to provide a fair assessment of these different views. There is some truth on both sides. When the idea of a reform of the law of obligations was first mooted the reform was to have been comprehensive. Thus, it was intended to cover areas like unjustified enrichment, delict and strict liability, suretyship and partnership. By the time, however,
when the commission charged with the revision of the law of obligations was appointed in 1984, the project had become somewhat less ambitious. It was decided to confine the commission's brief to the law of breach of contract, liability for defects in contracts of sale and contracts for work, and extinctive prescription (limitation of claims). The discussion draft, however, once again extended the scope of the reform. In the end, the following areas of the law of obligations have been affected: extinctive prescription, breach of contract, contracts of sale, contracts for work, credit transactions, and restitution after termination for breach of contract. The Standard Contract Terms Act and a number of special statutes aiming at the protection of the consumer have been integrated into the BGB. But as a result the revised obligational law did not eliminate the special liability of warranty of quality.Although Japan accepted German law mostly, but unlike other countries, Japan did not copied German law word by word, but made some modifications to the German and Roman law. On forms of breach, Japanese law accepted the division of breach into three forms-impossibility of performance, delay and positive breach. But on the liability of warranty of quality, the rules of liability of warranty of right in Japan were more similar to that of the German and Roman law. This made the system of leistungsstoerungen of Japan very special among countries that accepted continental law.The characteristic of unified system of leistungsstoerungen is that all different types of breach are governed by a unified rule, no matter what the cause is. Defective delivery is also a kind of breach, the rules governs it is no different. This kind of legislation is popular in anglo-american law countries and some international treaties.The reason why anglo-american law is the representative of unified system of leistungsstoerungen is that anglo-american law use a unified rule govern all the breaches, no matter what the cause is. This was because that on one hand there was no implied warranties of quality in early English law; on the other hand English law was not interested in the reasons why there came these breaches. When there were breaches, what the judges of anglo-american law thought about was whether the term been broken was a "condition" or a "warranty". As for whether the breach was cause by impossibility or delay or defective delivery does not matter. Although ((Sales of Goods)) of England and ((Uniform Commercial Code)) of USA set implied warranty duties, the rules that applied when these duties were broken were no different. So the liability of warranty of quality is just one kind of common liability of breach, conditions of liability and the
remedy was all the same. This was not modified until the 2002 ((Sales of Goods)) came into force.In the new English ((Sales of Goods)) ,when there was a breach of contract, firstly the judges must decide whether the breach was a defective delivery, if it was so then the vendee can set a reasonable period for the vendor, and called for repair or change, the vendee can also called for reduction of price or rescission of the contract; if it was not so, the judges must decide whether the terms been broken was a "condition" or a "warranty". If it was a "condition", it gave rise to rescission and damages, if it was a "warranty", it only gave rise to damages or specific performance. This was the whole system that works now in England.Some related international treaties such as ((ULIS)) in 1964, CCISG)) in 1980 were almost the same as that of the anglo-american law in this area.By comparison between these two different systems, I think that the system of Roman law is more favorable, independent liability of warranty of quality can do better when the weakers called hopelessly for help, what we should do is not to weaken this independency, but to eliminate the old definition system of common leistungsstoerungen, do not let the problems of common leistungsstoerungen bother the rules of warranty of quality any more.
二元给付障碍体系的特征在于将物之瑕疵担保责任外化于一般给付障碍体系之外,形成一种不同于一般违约责任的合同责任。这种做法可以追溯到罗马法,并借助着法国法,德国法的影响力传播到了现今主要的大陆法国家和地区的立法之中。就连2002年改革后的英国法也吸收了这种做法的合理成份。
罗马法开创了给付障碍二元结构体系的先河。这种创造性成就的起点就是对于消费者,承租人等特殊对象的特殊关怀。特别关怀的手段就是对于这些日常生活中最常见的交易制定特殊的规则,为消费者,承租人等特殊对象提供更多的救济方式,同时在责任的要件上给予适当的放宽。罗马法中找不到英国法中“买者自慎”的观念,在衡量促进经济发展与维护社会公平的价值冲突的时候罗马法为大陆法国家开创了一个很好的先例,可以说这种价值选择直到现代也没有过时。
罗马法的这种特征在法国法中得到了延续,可以说法国法比较忠实地继承了罗马法的规定。法国法中的物之瑕疵担保的规定基本上是罗马法规则的翻版。而真正对于法国法一般违约体系产生重大影响的是法定的瑕疵担保责任。因为如果存在当事人明示或者默示的物之瑕疵担保的话,如果交付的标的物有瑕疵,适用的就是有关一般的违约责任。法国法中法定的物之瑕疵担保的规定与罗马法中的市政官告示的规定如出一辙,但是由于法国法在一般违约责任的规定与罗马法已不太一样,所以法国法中物之瑕疵担保责任的独立性呈现出了一些不同于罗马法的特征。如在救济的方式,救济的范围,解除权等方面就有了区别于罗马法的特征。
可以说德国人借助其抽象的思维方式将罗马法的规定加以了升华,这种升华不仅仅在于对物之瑕疵担保责任规则的设定上,还表现在了对于罗马法违约形态的归纳和总结之上。在物之瑕疵担保责任的规则方面,德国旧债法将其完全从一般给付障碍体系剥离了出来,在体系上做到了自我圆满,从而将罗马法的传统推到了极致,这是法国法都没有做到的。而在一般违约形态的方面,德国旧债法根据罗马法中的一条法谚,将给付不能认定为给付障碍体系的核心概念,采用“扳道叉式”的原因分类法,按照违约的原因将违约形态分为给付不能,给付迟延两种。这种对于罗马
Leistungsstoerungen means that the obligor does not perform his duties according to the contract. It means a lot to the breach liability, for the ways and conditions are different according to the way we deal with it. The legal examples of different countries are divided into two systems, firstly the system of dualism, and secondly the unified system, the continental countries almost take former one, and the anglo-america countries and many international treaties almost take the latter one.The characteristic of dualism system is that liabilities of warranty of quality differs from the liabilities of common leistungsstoerungen system, and forms a kind of independent contract liability. This kind of legislation can date back to Roman law, through French law and German law it spread its influence into the main nations and districts of continental law. Even the English law after 2002 reform digested some ideas of this kind of legislation.Roman law created the dualism system of leistungsstoerungen. This creative achievement started with the idea that cared more for customers and lessee. And this kind of special protection was realized by setting special regulations for most familiar transactions in daily life, providing more remedies for special people like customers and lessee, and making suitable concessions in the conditions of liability. In Roman law we can not find any regulation that reflected the idea of "Caveat Emptor" that was very popular in English law. It can be said that Roman law set a good example for countries that accept continental law in keeping balance between economic growth and social justice, and this choice of value is still not out-dated nowadays.The characteristic of Roman law was kept in French law, the regulations of warranty of quality in French law were almost identical with that of Roman law. And what really mattered in the system of leistungsstoerungen was the liability of warranty of quality set by law, for if there were some agreements about the quality of the objects, whether express or implied, between the parties, the regulations that applied were that of the common liabilities of breach. The regulations of the liability of warranty of quality set by law in French law were nearly identical with that of Roman law, but because the regulations of common liability of breach were totally different, the independence of
liability of warranty of quality presented another face in the manner, scope of remedy, the right of rescission and so on.The Germans sublimed the regulations of Roman law by their abstract thinking pattern, this kind of sublimation relied not only on the regulations of warranty of quality, but also on the summarization and conclusion of forms of breach of Roman law. On one hand, former obligational law of German peeled the regulations of warranty of quality off the common system of leistungsstoerungen, made it totally independent, and by doing so it pushed the tradition of Roman law to a new apex; on the other hand, according to a maxim of Roman law former obligational law of German used "impossibility of performance" as its core definition, and divided the breach into three forms: impossibility of performance n delay and positive breach according to the cause of breach. The rules of sales, lease and some special kinds of contracts are quite different from the rules of impossibility of performance > delay and positive breach. So we can say that liability of warranty of quality formed a totally independent kind of liability that differed from the common liability of breach of contract. This division made great contribution to former German obligational law. Because of the independence of the liability of warranty of quality, breach of contract did not lead to the same liability under all circumstances. Former obligational law provided different remedies for different parties. But just because so, the common system of leistungsstoerungen can not include all situations of breach, and the German courts found it so difficult to deal with this kind of problems, this is why German modified its obligational law in 2002.On 1 January 2002, the most sweeping reform that has ever affected the code entered into force. It has remoulded large parts of the German law of obligations. At the same time, it has led to a deep division among legal scholars in Germany. For, on one hand, the reform was hailed as having been overdue and as bringing some of the most outdated parts of the BGB into line with modern international developments. On the other hand, there has been fierce criticism focusing, in particular, on the extraordinarily tight schedule for forcing through such fundamental changes. It might have been better, so it was maintained, to have an old code rather than a bad and ill-prepared one. It is not easy to provide a fair assessment of these different views. There is some truth on both sides. When the idea of a reform of the law of obligations was first mooted the reform was to have been comprehensive. Thus, it was intended to cover areas like unjustified enrichment, delict and strict liability, suretyship and partnership. By the time, however,
when the commission charged with the revision of the law of obligations was appointed in 1984, the project had become somewhat less ambitious. It was decided to confine the commission's brief to the law of breach of contract, liability for defects in contracts of sale and contracts for work, and extinctive prescription (limitation of claims). The discussion draft, however, once again extended the scope of the reform. In the end, the following areas of the law of obligations have been affected: extinctive prescription, breach of contract, contracts of sale, contracts for work, credit transactions, and restitution after termination for breach of contract. The Standard Contract Terms Act and a number of special statutes aiming at the protection of the consumer have been integrated into the BGB. But as a result the revised obligational law did not eliminate the special liability of warranty of quality.Although Japan accepted German law mostly, but unlike other countries, Japan did not copied German law word by word, but made some modifications to the German and Roman law. On forms of breach, Japanese law accepted the division of breach into three forms-impossibility of performance, delay and positive breach. But on the liability of warranty of quality, the rules of liability of warranty of right in Japan were more similar to that of the German and Roman law. This made the system of leistungsstoerungen of Japan very special among countries that accepted continental law.The characteristic of unified system of leistungsstoerungen is that all different types of breach are governed by a unified rule, no matter what the cause is. Defective delivery is also a kind of breach, the rules governs it is no different. This kind of legislation is popular in anglo-american law countries and some international treaties.The reason why anglo-american law is the representative of unified system of leistungsstoerungen is that anglo-american law use a unified rule govern all the breaches, no matter what the cause is. This was because that on one hand there was no implied warranties of quality in early English law; on the other hand English law was not interested in the reasons why there came these breaches. When there were breaches, what the judges of anglo-american law thought about was whether the term been broken was a "condition" or a "warranty". As for whether the breach was cause by impossibility or delay or defective delivery does not matter. Although ((Sales of Goods)) of England and ((Uniform Commercial Code)) of USA set implied warranty duties, the rules that applied when these duties were broken were no different. So the liability of warranty of quality is just one kind of common liability of breach, conditions of liability and the
remedy was all the same. This was not modified until the 2002 ((Sales of Goods)) came into force.In the new English ((Sales of Goods)) ,when there was a breach of contract, firstly the judges must decide whether the breach was a defective delivery, if it was so then the vendee can set a reasonable period for the vendor, and called for repair or change, the vendee can also called for reduction of price or rescission of the contract; if it was not so, the judges must decide whether the terms been broken was a "condition" or a "warranty". If it was a "condition", it gave rise to rescission and damages, if it was a "warranty", it only gave rise to damages or specific performance. This was the whole system that works now in England.Some related international treaties such as ((ULIS)) in 1964, CCISG)) in 1980 were almost the same as that of the anglo-american law in this area.By comparison between these two different systems, I think that the system of Roman law is more favorable, independent liability of warranty of quality can do better when the weakers called hopelessly for help, what we should do is not to weaken this independency, but to eliminate the old definition system of common leistungsstoerungen, do not let the problems of common leistungsstoerungen bother the rules of warranty of quality any more.
引文
1、余能斌 马俊驹《现代民法学》武汉大学出版社1995年版
2、余能斌《民法学》法律出版社2004年版
3、李双元 温世扬《比较民法学》武汉大学出版社1998年版
4、马俊驹 余延满《民法原论》法律出版社1998年版
5、余延满《合同法原论》武汉大学出版社1999年版
6、余延满《货物所有权的移转余风险负担的比较法研究》武汉大学出版社2002年版
7、王家福主编《中国民法学.民法债权》法律出版社1991年版
8、张俊浩《民法学原理》中国政法大学出版社1997年版
9、王利明《合同法研究》中国人民大学出版社2003年版
10、王利明《违约责任论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
11、梁慧星《民法学说判例与立法研究》,中国政法大学出版社1993年版
12、韩世远《合同法总论》法律出版社2004年版
13、崔建远主编《合同法》法律出版社2000年版
14、李永军《合同法》法律出版社2004年版
15、李永军《合同法原理》中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版
16、叶林《违约责任及其比较研究》中国人民大学出版社1997年版
17、尹田《法国现代合同法》法律出版社1995年版
18、葛云松《期前违约规则研究》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
19、何勤华《西方法学史》中国政法大学出版社1996年版
20、靳宝兰《比较民法》中国人民公安大学出版社1995年版
21、梁彗星主编《民商法论丛》法律出版社
22、吴汉东主编《私法研究》中国政法大学出版社
23、张生《民国初期民法的近代化-以固有法与继受法的整和为中心》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
24、韩世远《违约损害赔偿研究》法律出版社1999年版
25、何勤华 李秀清《外国民商法导论》复旦大学出版社2000年版
26、杨振山 桑德罗.斯奇巴尼《罗马法.中国法与民法法典化》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
27、张新宝 龚塞红《买卖合同与赠与合同》法律出版社1999年版
28、周林彬《比较合同法》兰州大学出版社1989年版
29、尤士丁尼《法学阶梯》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
30、丁玫著《罗马法契约责任》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
31、桑德罗.斯奇巴尼选编《契约之债与准契约之债》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
32、周枏《罗马法原论》商务印书馆1996年版
33、黄风《罗马私法导论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
34、巴里尼古拉斯《罗马法概论》法律出版社2000年版
35、约翰.亨利.梅利曼《大陆法系》法律出版社2004年版
36、艾伦沃森《民法法系德演变及形成》中国政法大学出版社1992年版
37、李宜琛《日耳曼法概说》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
38、戴东雄《中世纪意大利法学与德国的继受罗马法》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
39、迪特尔.梅迪库斯《德国债法总论》法律出版社2004年版
40、罗伯特.霍恩 海因.科茨 汉斯.G.莱塞《德国民商法导论》中国大百科全书出版社1996年版
41、杜景林 卢谌《德国债法改革〈德国民法典〉最新进展》法律出版社2003年版
42、杜景林 卢谌《德国新债法研究》中国政法大学出版社2004年版
43、朱岩编译《德国新债法条文及官方解释》法律出版社2003年版
44、我妻荣《债权在近代法中的优越地位》中国大百科全书出版社1999年版
45、我妻荣《中国民法债编总则论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
46、于保不二雄《日本民法债权总论》五南图书出版公司1998年版
47、星野英一《日本民法概论(契约)》五南图书出版公司1998年版
48、滕本正晃《债法总则》严松堂昭和11年版
49、大木雅夫《比较法》法律出版社1999年版
50、渠涛主编《中日民商法研究》法律出版社2003年版
51、史尚宽《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
52、史尚宽《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
53、王泽鉴《民法思维与民法实例》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
54、王泽鉴《民法学说与判例研究》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
55、王泽鉴《债法原理.基本理论-债之发生》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
56、黄茂荣《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
57、黄茂荣《买卖法》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
58、曾世雄《损害赔偿法原理》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
59、黄立《民法债编总论》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
60、詹森林《民事法理与判决研究》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
61、苏永钦《走入新世纪的私法自治》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
62、曾隆兴《详解损害赔偿法》中国政法大学出版社2004年版
63、郑玉波《民法债编总论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
64、邱聪智《新订民法债编通则》中国人民大学出版社1997年版
65、杨与龄《民法概要》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
66、林诚二《民法理论与问题研究》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
67、黄立主编《民法债编各论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
68、姚志明《债务不履行-不完全给付之研究》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
69、芮沐《民法法律行为理论之全部(民总债合编)》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
70、郑玉波《民法总则》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
71、郑玉波主编《民法债编论文辑》五南图书出版公司1984年版
72、刘清波《民法概论》台湾开明书店1967年版
73、欧阳经宇《民法债编通则实用》汉林出版社1977年版
74、梁代君编著《民法争议问题-债编总则》保成出版社1986年版
75、刘春堂《判例民法债编通则》三民书局1978年版
76、廖毅编著《债编修正问题研析》保成出版事业有限公司1999年版
77、邱聪智《民法研究(一)》中国人民大学出版社2002年版
78、林诚二《民法债编总论-体系化解说》中国人民大学出版社2003年版
79、黄茂荣《法学方法与现代民法》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
80、梅仲协《民法要义》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
81、黄越钦《私法论文集》世纪书局1970年版
82、习荣华主编《现代民法基本问题》汉林出版社1981年版
83、科宾《科宾论合同》中国大百科全书出版社1998年版
84、王军《美国合同法》中国政法大学出版社1996年版
85、何宝玉《英国合同法》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
86、李巍《联合国国际货物销售合同公约评释》法律出版社2004年版
87、陈若鸿编译《英国货物买卖法:判例与评论》法律出版社2003年版
88、《国际统一私法协会国际商事合同通则》法律出版社1996年版
89、沈达明《英美合同法引论》对外经济贸易大学出版社1993年版
90、杨祯《英美契约法论》北京大学出版社1997年版
91、冯大同主编《国际货物买卖法》对外贸易教育出版社1993年版
92、理查德.A.波斯纳《法律的经济分析》中国大百科全书出版社1999年版
93、P.S.阿狄亚《合同法导论》法律出版社2002年版
1、杨芳贤《给付迟延时解除契约与损害赔偿请求权关系之立法例以及我国民法第二百六十条等相关规定之探讨》载《政大法学评论》第58期
2、王利明《中德买卖合同制度德比较》载《比较法研究》2001年第1期
3、姚欢庆 陈亚飞《买卖合同若干法律问题研究》载《民商法学》2003年第3期
4、梁慧星《出卖人的瑕疵担保责任》载《比较法研究》1991年第3期
5、王利明《论履行不能》载《法商研究》1995年第3期
6、郭丽珍《自始给付不能之履行请求权》载《政大法学评论》第五十四期
7、詹森林《自始客观不能》(一)(二)载《月旦法学教室》试刊号、第二期
8、张永健《自始客观不能的经济分析》载《月旦法学》2002第2期
9、詹森林《自始主观不能》载《月旦法学教室》第六期
10、詹森林《利益第三人契约之给付不能》载《月旦法学杂志》1997年第4期
11、张永健《论给付不能之分类与归责问题》载《法令月刊》第五十四卷
12、孙森焱《论给付不能》载《固有法制与现代法学-戴炎辉七秩华诞祝贺论文集》台大法律系出版
13、邱聪富《出卖人权利瑕疵担保责任》载《月旦法学杂志》第67期2000年
14、杜景林 卢谌《德国新债法给付障碍体系重构》载《比较法研究》2004年第1期
15、多伊布勒《德国新债法概述》载《比较法研究》2002年第2期
16、陈彦良《论给付障碍法之新体例》载《月旦法学杂志》第95期2003年
17、邱琦《债务不履行体系的再构成》载《法令月刊》第五十一卷第十期
18、Gerhard Hohloch《债法修正及新法侵害契约之类型》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
19、加贺山茂《日本债务不履行的新开展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
20、郭丽珍《我国民事损害赔偿法之新发展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
21、姚志明《民法债务不履行之新发展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
22、王泽鉴《1964年海牙统一国际商品买卖法比较研究绪论》载《台大法学论丛》第一卷第二期1972年
23、丁玫《罗马法迟延制度》载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)1998年第4期
24、沈荣耀 徐少海《自始履行不能与合同效力的确定-兼论(国际商事合同通则)第3.3条》,载《河北法学》2002年第11期
25、王宝莅《出卖人瑕疵担保责任的再认识》载《江西财经大学学报》2001年第5期
26、付晓梅《从给付不能、给付迟延、积极违约到统一的违约概念-德国债法修改草案中给付障碍制度的修订介评》载《当代法学》2002年第1期
27、王莉《打击迟延付款 确保债权人利益-德国民法典的最新修订》载《当代法学》2001年第11期
28、唐孝辉《加害给付制度相关问题探讨》载《内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第3期
29、韩世远《履行迟延的理论问题》载《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第4期
30、王利明《论加害给付》载《法制与社会发展》1995年第5期
31、李正东《论加害给付》载《广西右江民族师专学报》2001年第6期
32、韩世远《论债权迟延》载《法制与社会发展》1999年第3期
33、杨立新《中国合同责任研究》载《河北省政法干部管理学院学报》2000年第1期
34、蔡晶莹《从德国民法债务不履行之修正看给付不能规定的转变》载《中原财经法学》第9期
1、John D. Calamari Joseph M. Perillo Contracts 2nd ed West Publishing CO. 1981
2、Gerald E. Berendt Michael L. Closen Doris Estelle Marie A. Monaham Robert J. Nye J H. Scheid Contract law and practice Anderson Publishing Co. 1998
3、Bradford Stone Uniform Commercial Code West Publishing CO. 1995
4、JOHN D. WLADIS, The Development of the Doctrine of Impossibility of Performance in English Contract Law, Georgetown Law Journal, June, 1987, 75 Geo. L. J. 1575
5、Dr. Eyal Zamir, Toward a General Concept of Conformity in the Performance of Contracts, Louisiana Law Review, SEPTEMBER, 1991, 52 La. L. Rev. 1
6、John D. Wladis, Impracticability as Risk Allocation: The Effect of Changed Circumstances Upon Contract Obligations for the Sale of Goods, Georgia Law Review, Spring 1988, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 503
7、Jianming Shen, THE REMEDY OF REQUIRING PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CISG AND THE RELEVANCE OF DOMESTIC RULES, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Fall, 1996, 13 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 253
8、Leon E. Trakman, Winner Take Some: Loss Sharing and Commercial Impracticability, Minnesota Law Review, February, 1985, 69 Minn. L. Rev. 471
9, G. Richard Shell, Contracts in the Modern Supreme Court, California Law Review, MARCH, 1993, 81 Calif. L. Rev. 431
10, John P. Dawson, JUDICIAL REVISION OF FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS: GERMANY, Boston University Law Review, NOVEMBER, 1983, 63 B.U.L. Rev. 1039
11 John P. Dawson, JUDICIAL REVISION OF FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS: THE UNITED STATES, Boston University Law Review, JANUARY, 1984, 64 B.U.L. Rev. 1
12, Kevin M. Teeven, Development of Reform of the Preexisting Duty Rule and Its Persistent Survival, Alabama Law Review, Winter, 1996, 47 Ala. L. Rev. 387
13, Christopher Osakwe, Modern Russian Law of Contracts: A Functional Analysis, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, March, 2002, 24 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 113
14, Elbi Janse van Vuuren, TERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring, 1998, 15 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 583
15, John Elofson, The Dilemma of Changed Circumstances in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis of the Foreseeability and Superior Risk Bearer Tests, Columbia University School of Law, Fall, 1996, 30 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 1
16, Saul Litvinoff, FORCE MAJEURE, FAILURE OF CAUSE AND THEORIE DE L'IMPREVISION: LOUISIANA LAW AND BEYOND, Louisiana Law Review, SEPTEMBER, 1985, 46 La. L. Rev. 1
17, Jody Daniel Newman, Exchange Controls and Foreign Loan Defaults: Force Majeure as an Alternative Defense, Iowa Law Review, July, 1986, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 1499
18, Gerhard Wagner, In Defense of the Impossibility Defense, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Fall, 1995, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 55
19, Dionysios P. Flambouras, THE DOCTRINES OF impossibility of performance AND CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS IN THE 1980 CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS AND THE
PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW-A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, Pace International Law Review, Fall, 2001, 13 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 261
20、K. M. Sharma, From "Sanctity" to "Fairness": An Uneasy Transition in the Law of Contracts?, New York Law Journal of International & Comparative Law, 1999, 18 N. Y. L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 95
21、Nicholas R. Weiskop, FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACTUAL PURPOSE DOCTRINE OR MYTH?, St. John's Law Review, Spring, 1996, 70 St. John's L. Rev. 239
22、SHELDON W. HALPERN, APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY: SEARCHING FOR "THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, JUNE, 1987, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1123
23、Barry Nicholas, Rules and Terms-Civil Law and Common Law, Tulane Law Review, June, 1974, 48 Tul. L. Rev. 946
24、James J. Hautot, THE 1984 REVISION OF THE LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE'S ARTICLES ON OBLIGATIONS-A STUDENT SYMPOSIUM: CONTRACT DISSOLUTION, Louisiana Law Review, JANUARY, 1985, 45 La. L. Rev. 783
25、Robert A. Riegert, The West German Civil Code, Its Origin and Its Contract Provisions, Tulane Law Review, December, 1970, 45 Tul. L. Rev. 48
26、John Gregory, UNIFORM CONTRACTLAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: FIRST COMPARATIVE LOOK, Florida Journal of International Law, Spring, 2000, 12 Fla. J. Int'l L. 467
27、Larry A. DiMatteo, Lucien Dhooge, Stephanie Greene, Virginia Maurer and Marisa Pagnattaro, The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law: An Analysis of Fifteen Years of CISG Jurisprudence, Journal of International Law & Business, Winter, 2004, 24 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 299
28、Patricia Pattison, Daniel Herron, THE MOUNTAINS ARE HIGH AND THE EMPEROR IS FAR AWAY: SANCTITY OF CONTRACT IN CHINA, American Business Law Journal, Spring, 2003, 40 Am. Bus. L. J. 459
1、《德国民法典》
2、《瑞士债务法》
3、《大清民律草案》
4、《民国民律草案》
5、《法国民法典》
6、《日本民法典》
7、《意大利民法典》
8、《俄罗斯民法典》
9、《澳门民法典》
10、《越南民法典》
11、《台湾民法典》
2、余能斌《民法学》法律出版社2004年版
3、李双元 温世扬《比较民法学》武汉大学出版社1998年版
4、马俊驹 余延满《民法原论》法律出版社1998年版
5、余延满《合同法原论》武汉大学出版社1999年版
6、余延满《货物所有权的移转余风险负担的比较法研究》武汉大学出版社2002年版
7、王家福主编《中国民法学.民法债权》法律出版社1991年版
8、张俊浩《民法学原理》中国政法大学出版社1997年版
9、王利明《合同法研究》中国人民大学出版社2003年版
10、王利明《违约责任论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
11、梁慧星《民法学说判例与立法研究》,中国政法大学出版社1993年版
12、韩世远《合同法总论》法律出版社2004年版
13、崔建远主编《合同法》法律出版社2000年版
14、李永军《合同法》法律出版社2004年版
15、李永军《合同法原理》中国人民公安大学出版社1999年版
16、叶林《违约责任及其比较研究》中国人民大学出版社1997年版
17、尹田《法国现代合同法》法律出版社1995年版
18、葛云松《期前违约规则研究》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
19、何勤华《西方法学史》中国政法大学出版社1996年版
20、靳宝兰《比较民法》中国人民公安大学出版社1995年版
21、梁彗星主编《民商法论丛》法律出版社
22、吴汉东主编《私法研究》中国政法大学出版社
23、张生《民国初期民法的近代化-以固有法与继受法的整和为中心》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
24、韩世远《违约损害赔偿研究》法律出版社1999年版
25、何勤华 李秀清《外国民商法导论》复旦大学出版社2000年版
26、杨振山 桑德罗.斯奇巴尼《罗马法.中国法与民法法典化》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
27、张新宝 龚塞红《买卖合同与赠与合同》法律出版社1999年版
28、周林彬《比较合同法》兰州大学出版社1989年版
29、尤士丁尼《法学阶梯》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
30、丁玫著《罗马法契约责任》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
31、桑德罗.斯奇巴尼选编《契约之债与准契约之债》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
32、周枏《罗马法原论》商务印书馆1996年版
33、黄风《罗马私法导论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
34、巴里尼古拉斯《罗马法概论》法律出版社2000年版
35、约翰.亨利.梅利曼《大陆法系》法律出版社2004年版
36、艾伦沃森《民法法系德演变及形成》中国政法大学出版社1992年版
37、李宜琛《日耳曼法概说》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
38、戴东雄《中世纪意大利法学与德国的继受罗马法》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
39、迪特尔.梅迪库斯《德国债法总论》法律出版社2004年版
40、罗伯特.霍恩 海因.科茨 汉斯.G.莱塞《德国民商法导论》中国大百科全书出版社1996年版
41、杜景林 卢谌《德国债法改革〈德国民法典〉最新进展》法律出版社2003年版
42、杜景林 卢谌《德国新债法研究》中国政法大学出版社2004年版
43、朱岩编译《德国新债法条文及官方解释》法律出版社2003年版
44、我妻荣《债权在近代法中的优越地位》中国大百科全书出版社1999年版
45、我妻荣《中国民法债编总则论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
46、于保不二雄《日本民法债权总论》五南图书出版公司1998年版
47、星野英一《日本民法概论(契约)》五南图书出版公司1998年版
48、滕本正晃《债法总则》严松堂昭和11年版
49、大木雅夫《比较法》法律出版社1999年版
50、渠涛主编《中日民商法研究》法律出版社2003年版
51、史尚宽《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
52、史尚宽《债法各论》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
53、王泽鉴《民法思维与民法实例》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
54、王泽鉴《民法学说与判例研究》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
55、王泽鉴《债法原理.基本理论-债之发生》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
56、黄茂荣《债法总论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
57、黄茂荣《买卖法》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
58、曾世雄《损害赔偿法原理》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
59、黄立《民法债编总论》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
60、詹森林《民事法理与判决研究》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
61、苏永钦《走入新世纪的私法自治》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
62、曾隆兴《详解损害赔偿法》中国政法大学出版社2004年版
63、郑玉波《民法债编总论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
64、邱聪智《新订民法债编通则》中国人民大学出版社1997年版
65、杨与龄《民法概要》中国政法大学出版社2002年版
66、林诚二《民法理论与问题研究》中国政法大学出版社2000年版
67、黄立主编《民法债编各论》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
68、姚志明《债务不履行-不完全给付之研究》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
69、芮沐《民法法律行为理论之全部(民总债合编)》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
70、郑玉波《民法总则》中国政法大学出版社2003年版
71、郑玉波主编《民法债编论文辑》五南图书出版公司1984年版
72、刘清波《民法概论》台湾开明书店1967年版
73、欧阳经宇《民法债编通则实用》汉林出版社1977年版
74、梁代君编著《民法争议问题-债编总则》保成出版社1986年版
75、刘春堂《判例民法债编通则》三民书局1978年版
76、廖毅编著《债编修正问题研析》保成出版事业有限公司1999年版
77、邱聪智《民法研究(一)》中国人民大学出版社2002年版
78、林诚二《民法债编总论-体系化解说》中国人民大学出版社2003年版
79、黄茂荣《法学方法与现代民法》中国政法大学出版社2001年版
80、梅仲协《民法要义》中国政法大学出版社1998年版
81、黄越钦《私法论文集》世纪书局1970年版
82、习荣华主编《现代民法基本问题》汉林出版社1981年版
83、科宾《科宾论合同》中国大百科全书出版社1998年版
84、王军《美国合同法》中国政法大学出版社1996年版
85、何宝玉《英国合同法》中国政法大学出版社1999年版
86、李巍《联合国国际货物销售合同公约评释》法律出版社2004年版
87、陈若鸿编译《英国货物买卖法:判例与评论》法律出版社2003年版
88、《国际统一私法协会国际商事合同通则》法律出版社1996年版
89、沈达明《英美合同法引论》对外经济贸易大学出版社1993年版
90、杨祯《英美契约法论》北京大学出版社1997年版
91、冯大同主编《国际货物买卖法》对外贸易教育出版社1993年版
92、理查德.A.波斯纳《法律的经济分析》中国大百科全书出版社1999年版
93、P.S.阿狄亚《合同法导论》法律出版社2002年版
1、杨芳贤《给付迟延时解除契约与损害赔偿请求权关系之立法例以及我国民法第二百六十条等相关规定之探讨》载《政大法学评论》第58期
2、王利明《中德买卖合同制度德比较》载《比较法研究》2001年第1期
3、姚欢庆 陈亚飞《买卖合同若干法律问题研究》载《民商法学》2003年第3期
4、梁慧星《出卖人的瑕疵担保责任》载《比较法研究》1991年第3期
5、王利明《论履行不能》载《法商研究》1995年第3期
6、郭丽珍《自始给付不能之履行请求权》载《政大法学评论》第五十四期
7、詹森林《自始客观不能》(一)(二)载《月旦法学教室》试刊号、第二期
8、张永健《自始客观不能的经济分析》载《月旦法学》2002第2期
9、詹森林《自始主观不能》载《月旦法学教室》第六期
10、詹森林《利益第三人契约之给付不能》载《月旦法学杂志》1997年第4期
11、张永健《论给付不能之分类与归责问题》载《法令月刊》第五十四卷
12、孙森焱《论给付不能》载《固有法制与现代法学-戴炎辉七秩华诞祝贺论文集》台大法律系出版
13、邱聪富《出卖人权利瑕疵担保责任》载《月旦法学杂志》第67期2000年
14、杜景林 卢谌《德国新债法给付障碍体系重构》载《比较法研究》2004年第1期
15、多伊布勒《德国新债法概述》载《比较法研究》2002年第2期
16、陈彦良《论给付障碍法之新体例》载《月旦法学杂志》第95期2003年
17、邱琦《债务不履行体系的再构成》载《法令月刊》第五十一卷第十期
18、Gerhard Hohloch《债法修正及新法侵害契约之类型》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
19、加贺山茂《日本债务不履行的新开展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
20、郭丽珍《我国民事损害赔偿法之新发展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
21、姚志明《民法债务不履行之新发展》载《月旦法学杂志》第99期2003年
22、王泽鉴《1964年海牙统一国际商品买卖法比较研究绪论》载《台大法学论丛》第一卷第二期1972年
23、丁玫《罗马法迟延制度》载《政法论坛》(中国政法大学学报)1998年第4期
24、沈荣耀 徐少海《自始履行不能与合同效力的确定-兼论(国际商事合同通则)第3.3条》,载《河北法学》2002年第11期
25、王宝莅《出卖人瑕疵担保责任的再认识》载《江西财经大学学报》2001年第5期
26、付晓梅《从给付不能、给付迟延、积极违约到统一的违约概念-德国债法修改草案中给付障碍制度的修订介评》载《当代法学》2002年第1期
27、王莉《打击迟延付款 确保债权人利益-德国民法典的最新修订》载《当代法学》2001年第11期
28、唐孝辉《加害给付制度相关问题探讨》载《内蒙古农业大学学报(社会科学版)》2003年第3期
29、韩世远《履行迟延的理论问题》载《清华大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2002年第4期
30、王利明《论加害给付》载《法制与社会发展》1995年第5期
31、李正东《论加害给付》载《广西右江民族师专学报》2001年第6期
32、韩世远《论债权迟延》载《法制与社会发展》1999年第3期
33、杨立新《中国合同责任研究》载《河北省政法干部管理学院学报》2000年第1期
34、蔡晶莹《从德国民法债务不履行之修正看给付不能规定的转变》载《中原财经法学》第9期
1、John D. Calamari Joseph M. Perillo Contracts 2nd ed West Publishing CO. 1981
2、Gerald E. Berendt Michael L. Closen Doris Estelle Marie A. Monaham Robert J. Nye J H. Scheid Contract law and practice Anderson Publishing Co. 1998
3、Bradford Stone Uniform Commercial Code West Publishing CO. 1995
4、JOHN D. WLADIS, The Development of the Doctrine of Impossibility of Performance in English Contract Law, Georgetown Law Journal, June, 1987, 75 Geo. L. J. 1575
5、Dr. Eyal Zamir, Toward a General Concept of Conformity in the Performance of Contracts, Louisiana Law Review, SEPTEMBER, 1991, 52 La. L. Rev. 1
6、John D. Wladis, Impracticability as Risk Allocation: The Effect of Changed Circumstances Upon Contract Obligations for the Sale of Goods, Georgia Law Review, Spring 1988, 22 Ga. L. Rev. 503
7、Jianming Shen, THE REMEDY OF REQUIRING PERFORMANCE UNDER THE CISG AND THE RELEVANCE OF DOMESTIC RULES, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Fall, 1996, 13 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 253
8、Leon E. Trakman, Winner Take Some: Loss Sharing and Commercial Impracticability, Minnesota Law Review, February, 1985, 69 Minn. L. Rev. 471
9, G. Richard Shell, Contracts in the Modern Supreme Court, California Law Review, MARCH, 1993, 81 Calif. L. Rev. 431
10, John P. Dawson, JUDICIAL REVISION OF FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS: GERMANY, Boston University Law Review, NOVEMBER, 1983, 63 B.U.L. Rev. 1039
11 John P. Dawson, JUDICIAL REVISION OF FRUSTRATED CONTRACTS: THE UNITED STATES, Boston University Law Review, JANUARY, 1984, 64 B.U.L. Rev. 1
12, Kevin M. Teeven, Development of Reform of the Preexisting Duty Rule and Its Persistent Survival, Alabama Law Review, Winter, 1996, 47 Ala. L. Rev. 387
13, Christopher Osakwe, Modern Russian Law of Contracts: A Functional Analysis, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, March, 2002, 24 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 113
14, Elbi Janse van Vuuren, TERMINATION OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: THE PROVISIONS OF THE UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS, Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Spring, 1998, 15 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. Law 583
15, John Elofson, The Dilemma of Changed Circumstances in Contract Law: An Economic Analysis of the Foreseeability and Superior Risk Bearer Tests, Columbia University School of Law, Fall, 1996, 30 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 1
16, Saul Litvinoff, FORCE MAJEURE, FAILURE OF CAUSE AND THEORIE DE L'IMPREVISION: LOUISIANA LAW AND BEYOND, Louisiana Law Review, SEPTEMBER, 1985, 46 La. L. Rev. 1
17, Jody Daniel Newman, Exchange Controls and Foreign Loan Defaults: Force Majeure as an Alternative Defense, Iowa Law Review, July, 1986, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 1499
18, Gerhard Wagner, In Defense of the Impossibility Defense, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Fall, 1995, 27 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 55
19, Dionysios P. Flambouras, THE DOCTRINES OF impossibility of performance AND CLAUSULA REBUS SIC STANTIBUS IN THE 1980 CONVENTION ON CONTRACTS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SALE OF GOODS AND THE
PRINCIPLES OF EUROPEAN CONTRACT LAW-A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS, Pace International Law Review, Fall, 2001, 13 Pace Int'l L. Rev. 261
20、K. M. Sharma, From "Sanctity" to "Fairness": An Uneasy Transition in the Law of Contracts?, New York Law Journal of International & Comparative Law, 1999, 18 N. Y. L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 95
21、Nicholas R. Weiskop, FRUSTRATION OF CONTRACTUAL PURPOSE DOCTRINE OR MYTH?, St. John's Law Review, Spring, 1996, 70 St. John's L. Rev. 239
22、SHELDON W. HALPERN, APPLICATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF COMMERCIAL IMPRACTICABILITY: SEARCHING FOR "THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON", University of Pennsylvania Law Review, JUNE, 1987, 135 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1123
23、Barry Nicholas, Rules and Terms-Civil Law and Common Law, Tulane Law Review, June, 1974, 48 Tul. L. Rev. 946
24、James J. Hautot, THE 1984 REVISION OF THE LOUISIANA CIVIL CODE'S ARTICLES ON OBLIGATIONS-A STUDENT SYMPOSIUM: CONTRACT DISSOLUTION, Louisiana Law Review, JANUARY, 1985, 45 La. L. Rev. 783
25、Robert A. Riegert, The West German Civil Code, Its Origin and Its Contract Provisions, Tulane Law Review, December, 1970, 45 Tul. L. Rev. 48
26、John Gregory, UNIFORM CONTRACTLAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA: FIRST COMPARATIVE LOOK, Florida Journal of International Law, Spring, 2000, 12 Fla. J. Int'l L. 467
27、Larry A. DiMatteo, Lucien Dhooge, Stephanie Greene, Virginia Maurer and Marisa Pagnattaro, The Interpretive Turn in International Sales Law: An Analysis of Fifteen Years of CISG Jurisprudence, Journal of International Law & Business, Winter, 2004, 24 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 299
28、Patricia Pattison, Daniel Herron, THE MOUNTAINS ARE HIGH AND THE EMPEROR IS FAR AWAY: SANCTITY OF CONTRACT IN CHINA, American Business Law Journal, Spring, 2003, 40 Am. Bus. L. J. 459
1、《德国民法典》
2、《瑞士债务法》
3、《大清民律草案》
4、《民国民律草案》
5、《法国民法典》
6、《日本民法典》
7、《意大利民法典》
8、《俄罗斯民法典》
9、《澳门民法典》
10、《越南民法典》
11、《台湾民法典》