论文部分内容阅读
合同法关于预期违约规定之粗略为该规则的司法适用带来操作难题,如何细化其认定标准,完善其救济方式成为该制度之研究重点。通过追溯预期违约之理论渊源,比较《统一商法典》与《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》中预期违约规则之立法差异,可以看出默示违约的认定标准除债务人的行为外,还包括债务人的某些客观事实。为保障合同的履行,立法者应正视合同法中默示违约规则存在的认定标准模糊、救济方式单一的缺陷,将债务人经营状况恶化、商业信誉有严重缺陷、资不抵债等客观事实作为债务人丧失履行能力或可能丧失履行能力的标志,认定其构成默示违约,同时用分步骤的救济方式弥补现行法单一救济制的不足。结合司法判例,分析认为债务人拒不履行其他生效法律文书的事实本身不足以构成默示违约,法官应结合反映债务人财务状况的证据予以认定;当事人应依法提出自己的诉讼请求,而不能随意篡改法律的原意,增加或变更诉讼请求,“提前履行合同义务”超出默示违约的救济范围。
The rough stipulation of the anticipatory breach of contract in the contract law brings operational problems to the judicial application of the rule, how to refine its recognition standard and improve its remedial mode become the research focus of the system. By tracing the theoretical origins of expected breach of contract and comparing the legislative differences between the Uniform Commercial Code and the expected rules of breach of contract in the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, it can be seen that the standard of implied default is not only the behavior of the debtor but also the debtor’s Some objective facts. To protect the performance of the contract, lawmakers should face up to the ambiguous standard of the default default rules in the contract law, the single defect of the remedies, the loss of the debtor’s objective fact such as the deteriorating business conditions of the debtor, serious defects in business reputation and insolvency Ability to fulfill or may lose the ability to fulfill the mark, that it constitutes an implied default, while using a step-by-step remedy to make up for deficiencies of the existing single law of relief. In combination with judicial precedents, it is analyzed that the fact that the debtor refuses to perform other effective legal instruments is not enough to constitute implied default, and judges should be identified in combination with the evidence reflecting the debtor’s financial status. The parties should make their own legal claims according to law and can not arbitrarily tamper with the legal Intend to add or change a claim, “early performance of contract obligations ” beyond the scope of the remedy of implied default.