“合同目的诉求差异”的现象发现及其处理路径——兼论合同法第94条第4款“不能实现合同目的”的解释原则

Finding the Phenomena of "Demands Difference in the Purpose of Contract" and the Solution: Also Discussing the Interpretation Principles for "the Purpose of the Contract has been Frustrated" in Ⅳ, Clause 94 of the Contract Law

司法实践中,不同合同主体签订同一内容的合同可能存在各种各样的合同目的,"合同目的诉求差异"问题便应运而生。合同法第94条第4项规定的"不能实现合同目的"的司法判断日渐成为审理的一大难题。类型化的理论区分并不能解决"合同目的诉求差异"的疑问,诉争当事人、不同法官对于"不能实现合同目的"如何解释仍然存在巨大争议。在这种理论困境下,援引比较心理学中的动机理论,归纳阐释合同法领域中的"合同动机"概念并将其应用至合同法的解释视域,可以有效避免陷入人为类型化、复杂化"合同目的"解释之泥沼,还可以更妥切地契合"合同目的诉求差异"的真实意蕴,从而更合理、更准确地解释合同法第94条第4项所蕴含的真实含义。

In judicial practice, as different subjects enter into the same contract for various purposes, the problem of ＂demands difference in the purpose of contract ＂ has emerged and it is difficult to make the judicial judgment on whether ＂the purpose of the contract has been frustrated ＂, as stipulated in the Ⅳ, Clause 94 of the Contract Law of the People＇s Republic of China. The problem of ＂demands difference in the purpose of contract＂ can＇t be solved by typed theoretical distinction, so the contract parties and judges still hold controversies over the explanations on ＂the purpose of the contract has been frustrated＂. Facing the theoretical predicament, this paper proposes that, in order to effectively avoid being caught in the typed and complicated interpretations on ＂the purpose of the contract＂, to properly tally with the real meaning of ＂appeal difference in the purpose of contract ＂, and to interpret the real meaning of the Ⅳ, Clause 94 of the Contract Law more reasonably and accurately, we should use the motivation theory in psychology as a reference, sum up and illustrate the concepts of ＂contract motivation＂ in the field of contract law, as well as apply the theory to interpreting the concepts in contract law.