以“服务”为交易对象的债权人违约初探-以最高人民法院指导案例1号为例

Primary Exploration on Creditor's Default where “Service” is Traded: an Example of No.1 Directive Case of the Supreme People's Court.

传统理论认为,受领给付是债权人的权利,即使发生债权人受领迟延,负迟延责任,也只是债权人不行使权利的结果,并非违约责任。最高人民法院公布的指导案例1号中,债权人先后与两中介公司签订居间合同,在只能受领其中之一提供的居间服务的情况下,已经造成对另一份居间合同的违反。《合同法》第101条规定了债权人拒绝受领、迟延受领和不能受领标的"物"的情况下,债务人可以提存,以终止双方合同上权利义务关系。债权人拒绝受领、迟延受领和不能受领债务人"服务"的情况下,因"服务"与标的"物"不具备类推适用的本质"类似性",第101条并无适用余地。通过债权人违约责任,能够解决以"服务"为对象的交易中债权人的不履行问题。

Traditional theory holds that acceptance of delivery is the right of creditor. The liability ofdelays in acceptance is the result of not exercising his right,rather than any default liability. The Supreme People's Court has issued its No.1 Directive Case,where the creditor signed brokerage contracts with two agents. In such a case,the creditor can only accept the service from one of the agents,violating the contract with the other. Article 101 of the Contract Law stipulates that where the creditor declines,delays or fails to accept the subject 'matter',the creditor can have it deposited to terminate the contractual right and duty relationship between the two sides. In case the creditor declines,delays or fails to accept the 'service',Section 01 is not applicable because a subject 'matter' cannot be analogized to a 'service' in essence in terms of similarity. Judicial practice and theory can solve the issue of creditor's non-performance of trade agreement where service is traded,by exploring creditor's default system.