摘要
《民法典(草案)》在情势变更制度下加入了遭受不利一方可请求再交涉的表述。但对其定性,既有的从给付义务、不真正义务或者附随义务说皆非合理,形成权说更与体系相悖。再交涉并不能如想象那样促进私法自治和契约严守,相反可能导致因情势变更而获益一方更具谈判优势,增加司法成本。从法经济学和比较法角度也无法证立再交涉的必要性。发生情势变更后,并不一定需要再交涉,且如何交涉以及不交涉的后果在现行法体系上皆无法明确。应将再交涉视为单纯的法律倡导,使其脱离权利义务的讨论。
The forthcoming Civil Code of China has added an article that the aggrieved party can request renegotiation under the system of changed situation.However,as to its nature,the existing theory of Nebenleistungspflicht,Obliegenheit or Nebenpflicht is unreasonable,and the theory of Gestaltungsrecht is even more contrary to the system.Renegotiation does not promote autonomy of the private law and pacta sunt servanda as expected.On the contrary,it may lead to the negotiating advantage of the beneficiary as a result of changes of the situation and increase judicial costs.The necessity of renegotiation can not be justified from the perspective of law and economics and comparative law.Under the changed situation,it is not necessary to negotiate again,and how to negotiate and the consequences of non-negotiation are not clear in the current legal system.Renegotiation should be considered as a simple legal advocacy and be separated from the discussion of rights and obligations.
出处
《法治社会》
2020年第2期13-25,共13页
Law-Based Society
关键词
情势变更
再交涉
异质性
倡导规范
Changed Situation
Renegotiation
Heterogeneity
Advocating Norms
作者简介
孙文,华东政法大学民商法学博士研究生。
