分包合同“背靠背支付”条款的司法实践与理论分析

Judicial Practice and Theory of Contingent Payment Clause of Subcontract

"背靠背"这一建筑行业中普遍存在的合同条款在司法实践中却因该条款的涉他性而性质不同,效力各异,举证责任不同,裁判结果迥异。《民法典》593条概括性地确立了合同相对性的基本原则,无法兼顾各类合同的特殊性。司法实践的同案不同判,其直接原因是现行立法没有明确的法律规定,折射出的却是背靠背条款所蕴含的价值冲突和理论争鸣。实现"背靠背支付"条款的同案同判,应当准确界定该条款的法律性质,在法律行为效力的基本理论下识别其法律效力,引入合同对抗性理论,通过明确承包人的告知义务和证明责任实现各方权利平衡与救济。

“Contingent payment clause”,a common contract clause in the construction industry,is different in nature,different in effect,different in burden of proof and different in judgment in judicial practice because of its nature of third-party-involved.Article 593 of the Civil Code generally generalizes the basic principle of contract relativity,which cannot take into account the particularity of all kinds of contracts.The immediate cause for “same cases,different judgements” in judicial practice is that there is no clear legal regulations in the current legislation,which reflects the value conflict and theoretical contention contained in the contingent payment clause.In order to achieve the “same cases,same judgments” of contingent payment clause,we should distinguish the different nature of “Pay-If-Paid” clauses and “Pay-When-Paid” clauses.Under the basic theory of the effectiveness of legal acts,we should realize the balance of rights and relief by clarifying the contractor’s obligation to inform and burden of proof.