| The system of the unpeaceful plea is a traditional system of Civil Law. It was derived from the adversary system of Roman Law and developed with the development of the principles on contractual liability and risk taking. This system has been adopted by Chinese civil and commercial law quite recently and many people haven't had a complete understanding about it. There is an anticipatory repudiation system in Common Law which is quite similar to the system of the unpeaceful plea in Civil Law. The advantages of the anticipatory repudiation system include giving priority to benefit and closely relating to practice, which have a great influence on the making of private international law and domestic law. For example, (hereinafter referred to as the Contract Law) which was promulgated in 1999 has adopted both the system of the unpeaceful plea and the anticipatory repudiation system. As a civil law country, can China adopt the anticipatory repudiation system in Common Law and even substitute the system of the unpeaceful plea without any adverse influence on the perfect structure and logic of its civil law system? Will the adoption of the anticipatory repudiation system spoil the logic of the original civil law system and cause the chaos to people's law thinking? The above questions have roused the research enthusiasm of Chinese scholars. Some of them think that the anticipatory repudiation system is superior to the system of the unpeaceful plea and should be completely adopted by Chinese law and even substitute the system of the unpeaceful plea. Others believe that the adoption of the anticipatory repudiation system will result in the conflicts of the law system and spoil the law system and even cause the collapse of law order in the near future.As an important law, the Contract Law gained much compliments with its promulgation. But why are there so many criticism of its adoption of the anticipatory repudiation system? We really should think the question over. In my opinion, it is better for us to analyse and compare the same and the differences of the two systems using the basic principles of law in contrast to just criticizing the shortcomings of the Contract Law. By this way we can give an impersonal remark on whether the relevant system in the Contract Law is proper and reasonable.For the purpose of making things clear, in the introductory part of this paper, I raise the question through the introduction of relevant disputes, and interpret my purpose of writing this paper and my points of view. Then in the first part of this paper, I introduce and analyse the basic theory of the right to the unpeaceful plea and the anticipatory repudiation system. To my thinking, although the power to cancel a contract is deferent from the right to the unpeaceful plea, it can be adopted by the anticipatory repudiation system as a right of formation arising from right to plea. Also, by analysing the types of anticipatory repudiation in Common Law I point out the mistakes on the types of anticipatory repudiation according to some Chinese scholars, by which I provide the foundation for the correct comparison of the same and differences of the two systems. One of the key points of this paper is the comparison of two systems in the second part of this paper. In this part I completely and carefully analyse the differences between the unpeaceful plea and anticipatory repudiation according to the different types of anticipatory repudiation, and point out that since the two systems have obvious differences on function and formation they can be adopted by one law simultaneously. In the third part of this paper, I analyse the legal nature of the provisions of the Contract Law in order to find out the relevant provisions of the Contract Law should belong to which legal system. By doing so, I can comment the validity and rationality of the Contract Law concerning its adoption of both the system of the unpeaceful plea and the anticipatory repudiation system at one time correctly and objectively. Another key point of this paper is in the fourth part where I give my comments on whether the anticipatory repudiation system is superior to the system of the unpeaceful plea and whether there exists any conflicts with respect to the coexistence of the two systems in the Contract Law. Then I point out that it is reasonable for the Contract Law to adopt the two systems at one time and that there is no superiority between the two systems and that there are not any disconformity and conflicts between the two systems. And further I point out that the anticipatory repudiation system in the Contract Law is an innovation system which absorbs the benefits of the anticipatory breach system in Common Law and considers the actuality of our country. Besides, I think it is necessary for the Contract Law to adopt the anticipatory breach system within a limited scope, because it helps to make the system of contract breach perfect. In other words, the Contract Law should receive an honourable mention for its adoption of the anticipatory breach system. In the fifth part of this paper I try to give my amendment concerning the defective provisions of the Contract Law in order to perfect the relevant legal system and to help with the correct application of the law in judicial practices. In the final part of this paper, I review the whole paper and further explain my points. At the same time, I point out the shortage of this paper and the aspect that needs further research.This paper begins on the disputes about simultaneous adoption of the two systems, and compares the same and differences of the two system based on the research of the basic theory of the legal system. After confirming the relevant provisions of the Contract Law should belong to which legal system, this paper affirms the rationality of the coexistence of the two systems. It also indicates the false views rising from the biased cognition and confirms the correctness of the relevant system as set forth in the Contract Law. This paper consists of 37,000 words.
|
PDF Full Text Request