默示预期违约与不安抗辩权制度之比较  

Contrast between Implied Anticipatory Breach of Contract and Precarious Right to Defense

作　　者：李军[1] 刘建民[2] 

机构地区：[1]新疆大学法学院,新疆乌鲁木齐830046 [2]石家庄经济学院法学院,河北石家庄050031

出　　处：《石家庄经济学院学报》2004年第3期338-341,共4页Journal of Shijiazhuang University of Economics

摘　　要：我国合同法规定了默示预期违约与不安抗辩权这两种有较多相似之处的制度。对默示预 期违约与不安抗辩权两种制度加以比较,并探讨《合同法》同时规定这两种制度有无必要。Two similar theories, implied anticipatory breach of contract and precarious right to defense, are simultaneously adopted by Chinese contract law. This paper attempts to contrast the implied anticipatory breach of contract with precarious right to defense. It is considered that there is unnecessary to simultaneously to admit those two similar theories.

关 键 词：合同法 默示预期违约制度 中国 不安抗辩权 

分 类 号：D913[政治法律—民商法学]