不安抗辩权论文：不安抗辩权 预期违约 比较 完善

不安抗辩权论文：不安抗辩权 预期违约 比较 完善 【关键词】不安抗辩权 预期违约 比较 完善 【英文关键词】unsafe right of defense anticipatory breach of contractcompare improvement 不安抗辩权论文:不安抗辩权和预期违约比较研究 【中文摘要】不安抗辩权(unsafe right of defense system) 是大陆法系现代法中的一项制度,最先来源于罗马法上的抗辩制度,并随着合同责任和风险承担规则发展起来,现代不安抗辩权制度起源于德国民法,并对多数国家合同立法及实践发挥重要作用。不安抗辩权的设置是为了平衡合同当事人双方的利益,体现的是安全、公平和效益原则。这种制度的设置可以更加有效的利用资源,将社会损失降到相对较小的程度。在合同实践中,不安抗辩权主要有维护善意的合同履行人的合法权益,鼓励交易并保护交易秩序的安全。预期违约(ancitipatory breach of contract)是英美法系上有关合同履行中的制度,其是由判例积累中归纳而成。预期违约的设置是为了能够及时解决纠纷,防止损失的进一步扩大,甚至这种制度在一定程度上还鼓励有效率的违约。《联合国国际货物销售合同公约》也借鉴吸收了预期违约制度,并将其继续发展,分类为根本性违约和非根本性违约,其有关预期违约的判定标准和救济措施与英美法系相比较,各有千秋。而大陆法系国家没有完备的预期违约制度。虽然不安抗辩权与预期违约在体现公平、信用和效益等原则上是一致的,但他们在适用 条件、构成要件和救济措施上也有着较大差异。不安抗辩权和预期违约都是为了消除在合同生效之后,履行完毕之前这段时间内有危害合同履行行为而建立的法律制度。我国1999年的《合同法》在继承大陆法系的基本框架同时,借鉴吸收了英美法系的预期违约制度,但我国的相关制度均有别于其他国家。由于我国法制建设的时间尚短,这两种制度还未达到融会贯通、浑然一体的效果。本文在结构上分为四节,分别从不安抗辩权制度和预期违约制度本身出发,论述了各自的立法渊源,对两种制度进行全面比较,我国制度中的缺陷,提出我国在完善合同法这两项制度的建议。第一章是阐述不安抗辩权的基本概况,首先较为详尽地介绍不安抗辩权的概念和特征,然后比较其他大陆法系国家中不安抗辩权制度的规定,分析它们的利弊得失,努力寻找自身不足,并由此对不安抗辩权的性质和效力进行全面分析。第二章是介绍英美法系的预期违约制度。首先回顾了预期违约的起源,以及制度自身发展,然后从预期违约制度设置的本意比较与实际违约的区别。本节的第二部分阐述预期违约的分类、构成要件及各自的救济方式。预期违约分为明示与默示预期违约两大类,有些分类则描述为预期拒绝履行和预期不能履行。第三章是关于不安抗辩权制度与预期违约制度之间的比较分析。首先是说明两者制度之间的相似点,其次是不安抗辩权与明示预期违约的比较分析,最后是不安抗辩权与默示预期违约的比较分析。第四章先阐述了我国合同法律中有关不安抗辩权和预期违约制度的现行规定,分析现行法律中的合理以及不足之 处。立足我国合同法律现状,探索我国不安抗辩权制度的架构;同时 我国引入英美法系的预期违约制度在一定程度上造成了法律适用上 的混乱。最后,提出我国不安抗辩权和预期违约制度的完善建议。 【英文摘要】Unsafe right of defense is a system of modern contract law in the civil law. the first from the Roman law on the defense system, and developed with the contractual liability and risk-taking rules, modern restless defenses system originated in Germany, the contract legislation and practice in most countries play an important role. The set of the unsafe right of defense is to the interests of both sides of the balance the parties to the contract, embodied in a safe, fair and effective. The setting of such a system can be more effective use of resources, and social losses to a relatively lesser extent. Practice of the contract, anxiety defenses to maintain the goodwill of the contract to fulfill the legitimate rights and interests of the people, to encourage trading and to protect the safety of the transaction order.Anticipatory breach of contract in the common law on the performance of the contract system, and its induction is made by the case accumulation. Anticipatory breach of contract setting is to be able to resolve disputes in a timely manner to prevent further expansion of the loss, even this system to some extent, to encourage efficient breach. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods learn from and absorb the expected default system, and continue to develop, classified as a fundamental breach of contract and fundamental breach the criteria of the expected default and remedies and common law compared strengths and weaknesses. Civil law countries, there is no complete system of anticipatory breach.Although unsafe right of defense and anticipatory breach of the principles of fairness, credibility and effectiveness, but their conditions of application, constitute the elements and relief measures also have a larger difference. Disturbed right of defense and anticipatory breach of contract is established in order to eliminate the bazard performance of the contract is completed prior to this period of time after the commencement of the contract to fulfill the legal system. China’s1999”Contract Law” in the basic framework of the civil law of succession at the same time, learn from and absorb the anticipatory breach of the common law system, China’s system are different from those of other countries. China’s legal construction of a short time, the two systems has not yet reached mastery, seamless effect.The paper is divided into four parts, unsafe right of defense system and is expected to breach the system itself is starting, and discusses the respective source of legislation, a comprehensive comparison of two systems, analyze the flaws in our system, in perfect contract law in China regime.In party1, introduce basic overview about the unsafe right of defense, first of all a more detailed introduction to the concepts and features of the disturbed right of defense, and then compare the provisions of unstable defense system in other civil law countries, analyze their pros and cons of trying to find my own shortcoming sand disturbed by the nature and effect of the right of defense to conduct a comprehensive analysis.Section II is the introduction of anticipatory breach of the common law system. First reviewed the anticipatory breach of the origin, as well as system development, then the difference between the actual breach of anticipatory breach of the intent of the system settings. This section, the second part describes the classification of non-compliance is expected, elements and their respective remedies. Anticipatory breach of contract is divided into express and implied anticipatory breach of two categories, some classification described refuses to perform as expected and anticipated unable to perform.Section III provides a comparative analysis between the disturbed right of defense systems and Anticipatory Breach. First the similarities between the two system. followed by comparative analysis of unstable defense and express anticipatory breach of contract, and the last is unstable defense and the implied expected default analysis.Section IV first to the existing provisions of the disturbed right of defense and anticipatory breach of contract system in China’s contract law. analysis of existing laws in a reasonable and inadequacies. Based on contract law in China, and explore the institutional framework of China’ s uneasy right of defense; at the same time the introduction of anticipatory breach of the common law system in China has caused confusion on the law applicable to a certain extent. Finally, suggestions for improvement of China’s uneasy right of defense and anticipatory breach of contract Svstem. 【目录】不安抗辩权和预期违约制度比较研究 摘要 3-5 Abstract 5-7 引言 11-12 第一章 大陆法系 中的不安抗辩权制度 12-20 一、不安抗辩权的基本概述 12-14 (一) 不安抗辩权的概念 12-13 (二) 不安抗辩 权的特征 13-14 二、不安抗辩权的法律渊源 14-16 (一) 德国法的相关规定 14 (二) 法国法的相关规定 14-15 (三) 其他国家或地区法律的相关规定 15-16 三、不安抗辩权的性质和效力 16-20 第二章 预期违约制度理论分析 20-28 一、预期违约制度的基本概况 20-24 (一) 预期违约制度的起源与发展 20-22 (二) 预期违约与实际违约的区别及价值 22-24 二、预期违约的分类和救济手段 24-28 (一) 明示预期违约 24-26 1. 明示预期违约的构成要件 24-25 2. 明示预期违约的救济手段 25-26 (二) 默示预期违约 26-28 1. 默示预期违约的构成要件 26-27 2. 默示预期违约的救济手段 27-28 第三章 不安抗辩权制度与预期违约制度的比较 28-33 一、不安抗辩权制度与预期违约制度的相似点 28-29 (一) 制度价值相似 28 (二) 二者立法目的相似 28 (三) 保护权利相近 28 (四) 二者适用时间相近 28-29 (五) 在一定程度上，二者都需要当事人的主观判断 29 二、不安抗辩权与明示预期违约的区别 29-30 (一) 二者适用条件不尽相同 29 (二) 对期待债权的侵害程度不同 29 (三) 当事人在主观上的过错不同 29-30 (四) 救济措施不同 30 三、不安抗辩权与默示预期违约比较 30-33 (一) 二者适用前提有所区别 30 (二) 发生的原因不同 30-31 (三) 救济方式 不同 31-33 第四章 我国不安抗辩权和预期违约的现状及完善 33-40 一、我国《合同法》中的不安抗辩权和预期违约制度 33-34 二、《合同法》中不安抗辩权的优劣和预期违约的不足 34-37 (一) 在不安抗辩权上，我国《合同法》进行的发展 34-35 1. 在行使条件上的规定更为详尽 34 2. 严格举证责任，防止权力滥用 34 3. 《合同法》能较好的照顾合同双方的利益 34-35 (二) 《合同法》中不安抗辩权存在的不足 35-36 1. 不安抗辩权在制定上存在重合 35 2. 不安抗辩权在判断标准上与预期违约相模糊 35 3. 立法用语不清晰明确 35-36 (三) 《合同法》中预期违约制度的缺陷 36-37 1. 法律条文结构安排不合理 36 2. 预期违约前后不一致 36 3. 未明确区分明示和默示预期违约 36 4. 没有规定明确的预期违约救济方式，操作性不强 36-37 5. 预期违约救济方式与实际违约的相同不妥 37 三、完善《合同法》中相关制度的建议 37-40 (一) 完善不安抗辩权制度的相关建议 38-39 1. 解决举证责任过于严格问题的建议 38 2. 解决“合理期限”和“适当担保”问题的建议 38-39 (二) 我国预期违约制度的完善 39-40 1. 应当明确预期违约的构成要件 39 2. 完善预期违约的救济方式 39 3. 对明示预期违约，可以增加预期违约方的撤回权 39 4. 明确赔偿范围 39-40 结语 40-41 注释 41-42 参考文献 42-43 后记 43-44