【作者】 董健；

【导师】 刘勇；

【作者基本信息】 南京大学 ， 法律（非法学）（专业学位）， 2020， 硕士

【摘要】 传统观点认为解除合同的权利属于非违约方,但是在最高院公报案例“新宇公司诉冯玉梅商铺买卖合同纠纷案”中,法院支持了违约方解除合同的诉讼请求,引起了关于违约方合同解除权的争议。在我国《民法典》的起草过程中,对于违约方合同解除权的法条也几经删改,最终在2019年12月提交审议的草案中,删除了这一条款,但此时最高院发布的《九民纪要》却规定违约方在一定的条件下可以请求法院解除合同。本文通过对实务和理论界的观点、学说进行整理分析,在此基础上对是否应当赋予违约方合同解除权进行论证。第一部分提出问题,从公报案例的观点以及《民法典》制定等立法过程中对违约方合同解除权问题的反复,说明对该问题的争议。第二部分对违约方合同解除权的裁判观点和理论观点进行梳理和分析。法院的判决结果并不统一,学界也存在司法解除说、直接赋权说和禁止说三种不同的观点,从中分析得出的问题关键在于,对《合同法》第九十四条和一百一十条应当如何进行解释,在立法上赋予违约方合同解除权在解决合同僵局的意义上是否具有必要性,在法理上是否具有正当性,以及此举能不能在真正意义上实现提高效率的立法目的。第三部分在比较法的视野上对违约方的合同解除权进行分析。大陆法系国家普遍未赋予违约方以合同解除权,而我国《合同法》与大陆法系一样奉行合同严守原则;英美法系的效率违约理论在立法目的和法律效果上与违约方合同解除权具有一定的相似性,其主要区别在于违约方合同解除权承担着解决合同僵局的具体任务,但效率违约在我国法律并未得到承认,而效率违约也并不一定能够提高整体及个案的效率。从比较法上看并不能得到赋予违约方合同解除权的正当性。第四部分为对解除权进路的分析。从解释论来说,无论是对《合同法》第九十四条还是一百一十条进行解释,都不能得出违约方享有合同解除权的结论。从立法论来说,创设违约方合同解除权,在合同解除的效果上,对于合同原债务的已履行部分,无论是产生了物权请求权还是债权请求权,都需要非违约方行使权利,并且合同解除后还应当由非违约方行使损害赔偿请求权并进行举证,而在违约方解除合同的情形下,法院若是直接进行裁判则缺少程序法上的支持,若是需要另行解决则会造成成本的增加和资源的浪费。第五部分在现行法律下探寻解决合同僵局问题的路径。既然赋予违约方合同解除权以提高效率的观点无法得到有力的支撑,在法律效果上也不具有合理性,那么只有用来解决合同僵局这一理由能够对其进行支持。但是在该问题上违约方合同解除权并无必要性,虽然情势变更制度并不能完全解决合同僵局的问题,但是减损规则却是一条合理的路径。在减损规则下,若是合同僵局对违约方造成损失,而因此允许违约方解除合同,则比效率违约的条件更加宽松,而我国立法并不承认效率违约,更何况效率违约并不一定能够真正实现效率;若是合同僵局对非违约方造成损失,非违约方不履行减损义务,则无法就扩大的损失要求违约方进行赔偿,作为一个合理的交易人,出于己方利益考虑,应当采取包括解除合同在内的适当措施,避免损失的扩大。在适用减损规则解决合同僵局时,无需考虑双方对损失的发生和扩大的过错,只要违约方表示以《合同法》第一百一十条规定内容为理由拒绝履行合同,则非违约方开始承担减损义务,而其采取的措施是否适当,则应当结合经济性标准、合理人标准和善意标准,分层次进行判断。更多还原

【Abstract】 The traditional view is that only the observant party can exercise the right to terminate the contract.However,the court upheld the default party’s claim to terminate the contract in “Feng Yumei Case”,which was published in Gazette of the Supreme People’s Court,and this caused controversy about the right to terminate the contract.The provision about the right to terminate the contract was revised several times before it was finalized in the process of establishing the civil code in our country,and the statute was canceled when the civil code was examined.However,Supreme People’s Court’s view in Minutes of Meeting about judicial is that the default party can apply to a people’s court to terminate the contract.I sort out and analyze different views of theorists and practices to draw a conclusion.The first part raises the question.I try to illustrate the controversy by sorting out Supreme People’s Court’s view and analyzing the legislative process of the civil code in our country.The second part explores different views of theorists and practices.Courts make different judgments,and scholar hold three different viewpoints.There are three major issues.Firstly,how should we explain article 94 and article 110 of Contract Law.Secondly,if it is either necessary to allow the default party to terminate the contract.Finally,if the move can increase efficiency.The third part study laws of other nations.The civil law countries forbid the default party to terminate the contract.The theory of efficient breach of the countries of common law system is similar to the right to terminate the contract.The main difference is that someone thinks that allowing the default party to terminate the contract can avoid the deadlock.However,the theory of efficient breach is not recognized in China,and it may not increase efficiency.The fourth part analyzes the right to terminate the contract.We can not come to a conclusion that the default party can terminate the contract by explaining Contract Law.The observant party has to exercise right to claim indemnity and put to the proof after the termination of the contract.However,courts have to judge directly.Otherwise,the observant party has to report to the court separately and resources will be wasted.The fifth part find solutions to solve the deadlock.Allow the default party to terminate the contract is not the only way to solve the deadlock.We can solve the problem by mitigation.The observant party can not request remedy for losses if he did not take appropriate measures to limit losses.The observant party,as a rational trader,will take appropriate measures including terminating the contract to avoid the spread of losses.The fault of any party to the contract would not influence the result.The observant party has to start to take appropriate measures if the default party refused to performance of contract on the ground of article 110 of Contract Law.We can decide whether the measures are appropriate by applying economic criterion,reasonableperson standard and bona-fide standard.更多还原