预期违约与不安抗辩权之比较研究

Research on anticipatory breach of contract and the comparison of the unsafe right of defense

在我国《合同法》上,既规定了预期违约也规定了不安抗辩权,这种并存的立法例在其他国家很少见,这种立法例同时也存在一定的问题。文章旨在通过对这两种制度渊源、法理基础的比较,并在细分预期违约的基础上,归纳出两者的不同。并认为在对保有两制度并存的《合同法》进行解释时,应赋予预期履行不能的预期违约和不安抗辩权以相同的救济方式,以保持法律的统一。

In our country ＂contract law＂, both provisions the anticipatory breach is unassured pleadings, the coexistence of legislative cases are rare in other countries, and there is a problem.This paper aims to two system origin, the comparison of legal basis, and on the basis of the expected default segment, induces the difference.And believe in to keep two system coexist ＂contract law＂, should be given the expected performance cannot expected breach of contract and discomposure deraignment in the same way, to keep the unity of the law.