摘要
“违约方解除权”化为《民法典》第580条第2款,引发了学界较大争议。解除权应当是当事人的基本自由,因此反对违约方享有解除权的,需要负担证明这一点的“证明责任”。在否定违约方解除权的论证中,论及效率违约的功利论证并不成立,因为效率违约与违约方解除权并无干系;对效率违约的批评,实是源自后者无视传统民法将实际履行作为违约救济的做法。但无论是“合同必须严守”的道德话语,抑或民法典的体系理由及其会引发“合同僵局”的固有认识,都难以证否违约方的解除权。不过,只要民法解释自我设限地拒斥“违约方享有解除权”,民法典第580条第2款同样难以实现其最初目标。
The“right to discharge of the breaching party”is translated into Article 580(2)of the Civil Code,which has aroused considerable controversy in the academic circles.The right of discharge should be a fundamental freedom of the parties,and therefore those who oppose it have to bear the“burden of proof”to prove it.In the argument against the breaching party’s right to discharge,since an efficient breach of contract has nothing to do with the breaching party’s right to discharge,the utilitarian argument for it does not hold water.The criticism for it stems from the latter’s disregard for the traditional civil law approach of actual performance as a remedy for breach of contract.However,neither the moral discourse of“pacta sunt servanda”nor the systemic rationale of the civil code and its inherent perception of“contractual deadlock”can prove the defaulting party’s right to discharge.However,as long as the interpretation of civil law is self-imposed and rejects“the right to discharge of the breaching party”,Article 580(2)of the Civil Code will also be unable to achieve its original objective.
出处
《求是学刊》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第5期122-131,共10页
Seeking Truth
关键词
违约方解除权
效率违约
实际履行
合同必须严守
民法典
the right to discharge of the breaching party
efficient breach
actual performance
pacta sunt servanda
Civil Code
作者简介
张凇纶,广东外语外贸大学土地法制研究院副教授
