论合同僵局中违约方申请解约

On Application for Discharge of Contract by Defaulting Party in Contract Deadlock

合同僵局是司法实践中出现的新情况和新问题,合同法不能通过确认违约方享有解除权的方式打破僵局,但有必要通过确认司法解除制度,允许违约方申请司法解除,由人民法院决定是否解除合同。法律必须对合同僵局情形下的司法解除条件作出明确规定,以维护诚信和公平原则,并保障交易的效率。打破合同僵局的要件包括:非违约方拒绝解除合同违反了诚信原则,非违约方拒绝解除合同对违约方显失公平,且应由当事人提出申请。民法典合同编(二审稿)第353条第2款虽然对打破合同僵局作出了大胆的尝试,该规定是我国民法典的大胆创新,但其关于合同司法解除的条件规定得过于严苛,且与打破合同僵局的现实需求并不完全吻合,因此有必要作进一步的完善。

The contract deadlock is a new situation and a new problem in judicial practice.This paper argues that the contract law cannot break the deadlock by confirming that the defaulting party has the right to release.However,it is necessary to break the contract deadlock by confirming the judicial discharge system and allowing the defaulting party to apply for judicial removal.The law must clearly define the conditions for judicial dissolution in the event of a contractual stalemate in order to uphold the principles of integrity and fairness and to ensure the efficiency of transactions.The author believes that the requirements for breaking the contract deadlock should include:the non-defaulting party refuses to terminate the contract in violation of the principle of good faith,and the non-defaulting party refuses to terminate the contract,which is unfair to the defaulting party,and the party proposes application.Article 353,paragraph 2,of the Civil Code Contracts(second draft)has made a bold attempt to break the contract deadlock.This provision is a bold innovation of our national code,but its conditions for the judicial discharge of contracts are too strict.And it does not exactly match the actual demand for breaking the contract deadlock,so it is necessary to further improve.