《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》与英国《1979年货物买卖法》违约救济手段比较分析——从强制实际履行和宽限期内履行制度说开去  

Comparative Examination on Remedies of CISG and SGA(1979):from the Perspective of Specific Performance and Nachfrist

作　　者：朱丁普[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学法学院,北京100871

出　　处：《河南省政法管理干部学院学报》2008年第5期165-171,共7页Journal of Henan Administrative Institute of Politics and Law

摘　　要：通过对《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》和英国《1979年货物买卖法》中违约救济手段的比较分析,我们可以看出与英国《1979年货物买卖法》以损害赔偿为主要救济手段的规定相比,《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》中的强制实际履行和宽限期内履行的规定为国际货物买卖合同当事人中的守约方提供了更多的救济选择,能够最大限度地维持合同效力,确保当事人根本订约目的的实现,减少因废止合同而造成的交易成本损失。因此,前者比后者在制度设计上更加符合国际货物买卖交易的实际,更为合理可取。In the paper,provisions concerning remedies for breach of contract contained in the United Nations Convention for Contracts of International Sale of Goods （hereinafter, CISG） , on the one side, and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in the United Kingdom （hereinafter, SGA （1979） , on the other, are examined in a comparative way. It can be proposed that specific performance and Nachfrist, among others in the CISG provide more practical remedies to an aggrieved party than those in SGA （1979） ,keep a contract alive as far as possible, ensure the parties to complete transactions as they agreed initially, and minimize losses caused by the recession of the contract. Therefore, the former is designed more desirably to the international sale of goods than the latter.

关 键 词：《联合国国际货物买卖合同公约》 英国《1979年货物买卖法》 违约救济手段 比较分析 强制实际履行 宽限期内履行 

分 类 号：D996[政治法律—经济法学]