解除权法定的一般除斥期间弹性化的证成与路径  

The justification and path of the flexibility of the statutory general preclusion period for the right to terminate

作　　者：马俊驹[1] 禹路兵 MA Junju;YU Lubing(School of Law,Southwest University of Finance and Economics,Chengdu 611130,P.R.China)

机构地区：[1]西南财经大学法学院,四川成都611130

出　　处：《重庆大学学报（社会科学版）》2024年第4期264-280,共17页Journal of Chongqing University(Social Science Edition)

基　　金：2019年国家社会科学基金青年项目“《民法总则》体系解释视角下法律行为理论再造研究”(19CFX056)。

摘　　要：解除权法定的一般除斥期间有固定为一年与弹性化两种主张。立法者采纳了前者,但前者理据显著不足。固定为一年的学者主张解除权法定的一般除斥期间类推撤销权一年除斥期间,在比较法上却尚无先例,而且撤销权一年除斥期间侧重撤销事由的可归责性而轻视其他影响因素的设定模式,并不适合解除权法定的一般除斥期间,因解除已不以解除事由可归责于债务人为要件,而主要以根本违约与指定期限内不履行作为要件。立法者还遵行了除斥期间为不变期限之观点,将解除权一年除斥期间绝对固定化,但该观点系我国传统学者对比较法残缺继受的片面认识。德国民法中的撤销权一年除斥期间作为混合的除斥期间即可以中止,故该观点作为立法依据有失妥当。另外,在解除权除斥期间的规范目的上,立法者与固定为一年的主张者主要关注“合同关系的尽快确定和稳定”与平衡债权人与债务人的利益,而忽视了其余两项规范目的:避免债务人遭受不合理损失、面临风险、丧失其他交易机会,以及防止债权人以债务人的损失为代价进行投机,而且固定为一年的主张者仅做了纯理论推导与少量裁判文书的分析,因此,均无法证成解除权法定的一般除斥期间应固定为一年。与之相反的是,解除权法定的一般除斥期间弹性化理据充分。为实现规范目的,解除权除斥期间需要考量合同类型、特定合同的规范目的、合同标的易腐性与季节性、标的易受市场价格波动的影响、标的因遭遇不可抗力与意外事件而毁损灭失的风险、替代交易的难易程度、不履行的类型、继续履行的可能性、法律咨询的时间以及其他合理因素,而具体案件中考量因素具有差异性,一年固定期限无法适应该种差异性,暴露出过长与过短的法律漏洞,因此,解除权法定的一般除斥期间弹性化是适应具体案�There are two main arguments for the statutory general preclusion period for the right to terminate:fixing it at one year and making it flexible.The legislator adopted the former.However,the argument for fixing it at one year lacks significant basis.Scholars who advocate fixing it at one year argue that the statutory general preclusion period for the right to terminate should be analogous to the one-year preclusion period for the right of revocation.However,there is no precedent for this in comparative law.Additionally,the one-year preclusion period for the right of revocation focuses on the imputability of the cause for revocation and disregards other influencing factors.This setting mode is not suitable for the statutory general preclusion period for the right to terminate,as termination no longer requires the cause for termination to be attributable to the debtor,but mainly relies on fundamental breach of contract and failure to perform within a specified period.The legislator adheres to the view that the preclusion period is an invariable period,and thus the one-year preclusion period for the right to terminate is absolutely fixed.However,this view is the one-sided understanding of comparative law by traditional Chinese scholars.In Germany civil law,the one-year preclusion period for the right of revocation,as a mixed preclusion period,can be suspended.Therefore,this view is inappropriate as a legislative basis.In addition,in terms of the normative purpose of the preclusion period for the right to terminate,the advocates for fixing it at one year and the legislators mainly focus on“the prompt determination and stability of contractual relationships”and the balance of interests between creditors and debtors.However,they ignore two other normative purposes:preventing debtors from suffering unreasonable losses,facing risks,losing other transaction opportunities,and preventing creditors from speculating at the expense of debtors’losses.Moreover,the advocates for fixing it at one year have only conducted pur

关 键 词：解除权法定的一般除斥期间 撤销权除斥期间 固定期限 合理期限 弹性化 

分 类 号：D923[政治法律—民商法学]