《民法典》中定金合同实践性之反思

Reflection on the Practicality of Deposit Contract in Civil Code

我国《民法典》规定定金合同为"自实际交付定金时成立"的实践合同,应付定金方没有交付定金时的定金合同未生效,交付定金不是应付定金方的义务。司法实务中,往往应付定金方不仅未交付定金,还依据已生效的主合同请求应收定金方履约及承担违约责任。造成这一不公平现象的根源在于定金合同的实践性。定金合同的实践性既不符合合同诺成性的发展趋势,又脱离了实践合同存在的历史背景。在解释论上,可以将交付定金作为主合同的生效或履行条件,或者参照质押中质押合同和质权设立相区分的规则,未交付定金不影响定金合同的效力。但这些解释路径仅为权宜之计,本质上均与《民法典》的规定和民事基本理论存在冲突,应然之计是在《民法典》修法时将定金实践合同改为诺成合同。

The Civil Code stipulates that the deposit contract is a practical contract"established from the time when the deposit is actually delivered".The deposit contract does not take effect when the deposit is not delivered by the deposit payer,and delivering deposit is not the obligation of the deposit payer.In judicial practice,the deposit payable party not only fails to pay the deposit frequently,but also performs and assumes the liability for breach of contract according to the effective main contract.The root of this unfair phenomenon lies in the practicality of the deposit contract.The practicality of the deposit contract is not only in line with the development trend of the consensual contract,but also divorced from the historical background of the existence of the practical contract.In terms of interpretation theory,the delivery of the deposit can be regarded as the condition for the effectiveness or performance of the main contract,or referring to rules of distinguishing between the pledge contract and the establishment of the pledge right,the non-payment of the deposit does not affect the effectiveness of the deposit contract.However,these interpretation paths are only an expedient measure,which conflicts with the provisions of the Civil Code and the basic theory of civil law in essence.The deposit practical contract should be changed into a consensual contract when the Civil Code is amended.