履行迟延的合同解除规则释论

针对主给付义务的履行迟延,符合我国《民法典》第563条第1款第3项、第4项的构成要件即可解除合同。符合我国《民法典》第563条第1款第3项之情形,直接落入“主要债务”的文义射程。合同解除法上的广义附随义务囊括了传统“债法上之义务群”中的狭义的附随义务与从给付义务,只有迟延履行广义附随义务不符合合同目的,方落入“主要债务”的射程,此时需将“主要债务”进行目的性扩张解释。在履行迟延中,应将我国《民法典》第563条第1款第4项作目的性限缩解释,并可采用类推适用违约损害赔偿的可预见性规则予以适用。就合同目的不能实现之判断,以公式来表明,即为“重大违约(需结合个案判断)+并非债务人订约时不可预见或不可认识(当事人主观标准+理性人标准)=合同目的不能实现”。可预见性的判断时点为合同订立时。不能实现合同目的的举证责任原则上由主张根本违约之一方当事人负担,但在如合同已明定给付日期等无争议之重要事项之场合,当事人无需负担举证责任。履行迟延中的合同解除权之发生不以债务人的可归责性为必要。在解释上,应当认为我国《民法典》第563条第1款第3项适用于非定期行为,我国《民法典》第563条第1款第4项适用于定期行为。关于相对的定期行为之成立,除有“履行期日严守”要件之外,还须结合合同目的予以判断。

On Interpretation of Rules on the Termination of Contract due to Delayed Performance

The delayed performance of principal obligations leads to the termination of contract when it meets the conditions set forth in Paragraphs 3 or 4 of Item 1 of Article 563 of Civil Code of China,and it literally belongs to the category of"main obligation"when it meets the condition set forth in the former paragraph.The ancillary obligations in broad sense under the law on the termination of contract include the ancillary obligations in narrow sense and secondary performance obligations in the traditional"group of obligations under the law of obligation"and only the ancillary obligation in broad sense,the delayed performance of which leads to the contract frustration,falls into the scope of"main obligation".At this moment,it is necessary to conduct purposive expansion of"main obligation".Among delayed performances,the situation set forth in Paragraph 4 of Item 1 of Article 563 shall be interpreted in a purposively limited way and applied by analogy of the rule of predictability on the damages for breach of contract.The frustration of contract can be shown by a formula,i.e.substantial breach of contract(case-by-case judgment)+not unforeseeable or unpredictable by the obligor when entering into the contract(a party's subjective standard+reasonable person standard)=the frustration of contract".The predictability at the time point of the conclusion of contract shall be decided.The burden of proof on the frustration of contract shall be borne by a party who claims that the other party fundamentally breached the contract unless in situations without disputes on materials matters such as the date of performance expressly stipulated in the contract where no burden of proof is imposed on such party.The right to terminate a contract due to the delayed performance does not require the accountability of the obligor.When interpreted,Paragraph 3 of Item 1 of Article 563 shall be regarded as being applied to conducts without strict requirement of performance date and Paragraph 4 of Item 1 of Article 563 to conducts with strict requirement of performance date.Regarding the establishment of a conduct with relatively strict requirement of performance date,judgment must be made on basis of the existence of an element of"strictly observing the performance date"and the purposes of contract.