论预期违约与不安抗辩权的选择

On the Choice of Anticipatory Breach of Contract and the Right of Uneasy Defense

我国现行的《合同法》中并行规定了不安抗辩权与预期违约制度,为我国司法实践如何适用二者带来选择困境,并且学界未就此问题达成共识。对诸学说进行剖析后,在避免三种学说疏漏的前提下,结合域外立法例,建议修正《合同法》第68条的立法歧义、明确拒绝履行的适用条款、限缩解释默示预期违约的范围以及明确丧失履行能力情形下适用不安抗辩权来实现二者的有效衔接。

In the current contract law of our country,the system of uneasy counterplea and anticipatory breach of contract is stipulated in parallel,which causes the dilemma of how to use these two in the judicial practice,and the academic circle has not reached a consensus on this issue.After analyzing some theories and combining with the legislation of foreign countries,and on the premise of avoiding the careless omission of the three theories,it is suggested to amend the legislative ambiguity in Article 68 of the contract law,clarify the applicable clauses of refusing to perform,limit the scope of implied expected breach of contract in interpretation,and clearly apply the right of uneasy defense in the case of incapacity to perform in order to realize the effective connection of the two.