吸收还是摒弃:违约方合同解除权之反思——基于相关裁判案例的实证研究

我国《合同法》并无关于违约方解除权的明文规定,相关裁判以《合同法》第94条或第110条作为支持违约方解除合同的依据,均难谓妥当。考察相关裁判背后的实质动因,可以发现通过现有规则即可直接或间接达到目的,并无创设违约方解除权的必要。为违约方解除权提供正当性支撑的效率违约理论,渊源于诞生地的特殊制度背景,其自身亦存在不少盲点,且与我国民事立法的价值取向及我国《合同法》设置的违约救济路径不相容。违约方解除权这一制度“创新”过分侵蚀合同拘束力,不符合当下中国的社会现实,应予以明确摒弃。

Absorption or Abandonment: Reflection on the Right of Terminate the Contract of the Defaulting Party Empirical Research Based on Cases

China’s Contract Law does not contain explicit provisions on the right to terminate contract of the defaulting party.It is difficult to refer to Article 94 or Article 110 of the Contract Law as the basis for supporting the defaulting party to terminate the contract.We examine the substantive motivation behind the relevant cases and find that the existing rules can achieve the purpose,and there is no need to create the right of the defaulting party to terminate contract.The efficiency breach theory that provides legitimacy support for the right,but the theory also has many defects,and it is incompatible with the value orientation of China’s civil legislation and the path of default relief set by China’s Contract Law.Allowing the defaulting party to terminate the contract excessively erodes the contractual binding force and does not conform to the current social reality of China,and we should reject it.