预期违约与不安抗辩权比较研究——兼评我国《合同法》第68、69、94和108条的立法缺失  

Comparative Studies of Remedies for Anticipated Breach of Contract——Also on the legislation defects of Arts. 68, 69, 94, and 108 of Chinese Contract Law

作　　者：韩桂君 肖广文[1] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学法学院,湖北武汉430073

出　　处：《河北法学》2004年第1期38-43,共6页Hebei Law Science

摘　　要：英美法系的预期违约制度与大陆法系的不安抗辩权制度都是为了防止一方当事人先期违约而设立的,两种制度在各自法系的实践中都取得了相应的司法实效。但现在看来,预期违约制度相对来说比不安抗辩权制度更为完善。我国《合同法》同时规定两种制度,这种立法例的成败得失值得研究。将两种功能相同的制度规定在同一部法律中,显得重叠与矛盾,故建议修改现行《合同法》,废除不完善的不安抗辩权制度,只规定预期违约制度为宜,实现合同法的效益、安全、公平的价值。The anticipatory breach of contract in the Anglo-American legal system and the unsafe right of defense in the civil law system are both for anticipatory breach of contract by one party; and they have achieved corresponding effect in each system respectively. Comparatively, however, anticipatory breach of contract is better than unsafe right of defense. The Chinese Contract Law provides two remedies in the same law, which warrants careful study. It is conflicting and redundant to have two remedies of similar function in one law, hence proposes to revise the current Contract Law by repealing the imperfect unsafe right of defense to achieve the values of efficacy, security, and fairness of the contract law.

关 键 词：预期违约 不安抗辩权 《合同法》 立法 构成要件 救济方式 

分 类 号：D923.6[政治法律—民商法学]