论预期违约制度与不安抗辩权制度的整合

【作者】 孙惠；

【导师】 黄和新；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 民商法学， 2008， 硕士

【摘要】 按照传统的契约法原理,违约就是对契约义务的违反,在义务履行期届至前,债务人并不负有实际给付义务,故违约只发生在履行期到来后才符合逻辑,如果在义务履行期到来之前债务人就已声明将不履行契约义务,行为或客观情况已经表明他将于义务履行期届至时不能履行义务,法律是让债权人坐等履行期到来后寻求实际违约的救济,还是确立义务履行期届至前的违约救济制度,使债权人免受更大的损失?为解决合同生效后至履行前在合同履行上的这一危险,英美法建立了预期违约制度,一方面它以判例形式逐渐形成一套关于预期违约的法律原则,另一方面又以成文法形式使之得以发展,从而共同形成较为完善的预期违约制度。该制度充分体现了合同之诚信与公平原则,它对于衡平双方当事人的利益,及时解决合同纠纷以避免社会资源的人为浪费具有重要意义,是英美法对世界法制文明的一大贡献。大陆法系国家没有英美法系的预期违约概念,它们认为在清偿期到来前债权人并不享有实际请求履行的权利,故此时并不发生债务人不履行的法律责任,履行期限是为了债务人利益设定的,债务人可提前履行而债权人则无法请求提前履行。大陆法系中与预期违约制度功能相似的是不安抗辩权制度,该制度源于德国法,是大陆法为贯彻公平原则,避免先履行一方当事人蒙受损失而设置的制度,为大陆法系各国民法典所规定。它与英美法的预期违约制度有一定的差异。我国的《合同法》在继承大陆法基本框架和体系的同时,博采众家之长,吸收和借鉴了英美法中的预期违约制度,是我国立法的重大进步。预期违约制度的建立,“不仅会使合同双方当事人的权利义务公平化,在一定程度上避免预期违约诱发的违约风险,而且还可以将预期违约可能造成的损失消灭在萌芽状态或降低到最低限度。”但是《合同法》确立的预期违约制度并非完全是英美法意义上的预期违约制度,与之相比,我国《合同法》中预期违约制度的内涵显得单薄得多,无论是立法规定还是司法适用上均存在一些不足。本文笔者拟通过对预期违约制度理论和实践的分析、探讨,来评析我国《合同法》中的预期违约制度,并提出有关设想,以期该制度在司法实践中更具生命力。更多还原

【Abstract】 Anticipatory breach derives from precedents in England. As an independent rule of breach, it constitutes the whole breach system of Anglo-American law system with actual breach. Anticipatory repudiation and prospective inability to perform constitute the two basic patterns of anticipatory breach. A breach may occur between the time the contract is made and the time due for its performance, that is, one of the parties breaches before either party has begun performance under the contract. When an anticipatory repudiation occurs, the other party has a choice between two alternatives: he may accept the repudiation and sue immediately for relief of breach; or he may ignore the repudiation and just continue performing under the contract. If a party has reasonable grounds for insecurity regarding the other’s performance, he may demand an adequate assurance of due performance. Until that assurance is received, the party requesting it may, if commercially reasonable, suspend any of his own performance for which he has not already received the agreed return. Where the assurance is not provided within a reasonable time, it results in anticipatory breach. Anticipatory breach may promote the creditor to take measures as early as possible so as to reduce the loss actively.Unsafe right of defense originates from the civil law system. It allows the party required to perform first to suspend his performance when the other party is in bad property conditions and has the possibility of non-performance. It can secure the party required to from losing the corresponding performance of the other party, also stimulate the other party to perform and balance the interests of parties of contracts. Anticipatory breach and unsafe right belong to two different law systems and have different legal culture background. It’s unnecessary to compare two of them. But the Contract Law of PRC stipulates these two rules simultaneously. Article 68 of Chapter 4"Performance of Contracts" is about unsafe right of defense, and Article 108 of Chapter 7"Liabilities for Breach of Contracts" is regarded as rule of anticipatory breach. The arguments arise, as to how to deal with relationship of these two rules, whether these two rules can exist in the PRC law system, etc. The author compares them from their background, nature, scope and function. Though the two rules are remedies of the contract in a broad sense, they’re still of different legal nature.Anticipatory breach belongs to the scope of breach; while unsafe right of defense belongs to the right of defense safeguarding the performance of contract. But the Contract Law does not coordinate the relationship of them, and they do not exist in harmony. There are some questions in the law system, such as the stipulation of anticipatory breach is too simple, the scope of two rules overlaps, and the law is not consistent. These questions cause the confusion in the application. Therefore, the author brings forward series of corresponding suggestions on how to perfect the rules of anticipatory breach in our country.更多还原