违约方解除权理论批判

The Criticism of the Theory of the Rescission of Contract by the Defaulting Party

违约方解除权理论属于对立法误解的不当创新,实践中法院借助《合同法》第94条或第110条赋予违约方解除权的做法并无实证法上的坚强理由,英美法上效率违约理论也未赋予违约一方解除合同的权利。违约方解除权理论属于对效率违约理论的过度创新,更易诱发合同道德风险。违约方解除权理论不仅在损害赔偿范围、担保安排、债权让与等问题上无法保护守约方,在尊重守约方意志、贯彻债权权能等问题上也无法达到圆融自洽。合同因一方违约而陷入履行不能时,只需排除守约方的强制履行请求权使其重新选择救济措施即可,无须赋予违约方解除权使合同归于消灭。

The theory of the right of rescission of the defaulting party is an improper innovation of the misunderstanding of the legislation.In practice,the court has given the breaching party the right to terminate the right by means of Article 94 or Article 110 of the Contract Law.There is no strong reason in the empirical law,the theory of efficiency breach in the Anglo-American law.Nor did it give the defaulting party the right to terminate the contract.The theory of the right of rescission of the defaulting party is an over-innovation of the theory of efficiency breach,which is more likely to induce contractual moral hazard.The theory of the right of rescission of the defaulting party cannot protect the observant party on the issues of damages,guarantee arrangements,and creditor’s rights.It is also unable to achieve self-consistency in respecting the will of the observant party and the implementation of creditor’s rights.If the contract is not fulfilled due to one party’s breach of contract,it is only necessary to exclude the obligatory party’s mandatory performance claim to re-select the remedy.There is no need to give the defaulting party the right to cancel the contract.