| When a contract is rescinded, how to ascertain the scope of damages is one of the academic fiddles which constantly puzzle scholars. This dissertation tries to expound that topic from the macroscopic view, as well as from the microscopic view. On the board sense, by comparing relative or similar rules or stipulations of various legal systems as well as typical countries, author try to explore those fundamental reasons and realistic basis behind that subject. Though micro vision, this thesis mainly analyzes all kinds of theories on damages for cancellation of contract, which ultimately paves the way for author's final sensible choice.In Section One, author summarily elaborates on the meanings or implications of relevant conceptions. The content of this section mainly are: What on earth are dissolution of contract and the right to cancel contract? Statutory conditions for utilizing the right of cancellation; the objective and the subjective elements of rescission right which is the direct result of contract breaching. In general, the main purpose of this analysis is trying to draw comparative clear boundaries for author's elucidation. For a particular contract, cancellation rights academically can be divided into two sub-groups: cancellation rights by agreement, and statutory cancellation rights. This paper mainly focuses on the research of those cancellation rights caused by contract breaching.In Section Two, for the paper topic, author pays great attention to the comparison and analysis of similar rules, which legislated by eminent countries in this world. That comparison logically is comprised by three parts: explications on similar rules of Roman legal system, on similar rules of Anglo-American legal system, and on some contentment of international treaties. Essence of that part is the elaborations on Roman legal system countries'stipulations on contract cancellation matters. In the laws of Roman legal system countries, originally speaking, after a specific contract is discharged, there exist two choices: the Doctrine of Alternativeness and the Doctrine of Co-existence. The Alternative Doctrine means a creditor can't enjoy two rights concurrently. In another words, he can only select to rescind the particular contract, or to acclaim relative damages, but can't enjoy those two rights simultaneously. Contrary to that, the Doctrine of Co-existence permits a creditor to enjoy those legalize rights at the same time. Before the amendments of German debt law, only German legalizations adopted the Doctrine of Alternativeness. After the revision tasks of German Civil Code accomplished in 2002, on the matters of rescission contract, Germany also shifted to the Doctrine of Co-existence.Consequently, those typical countries of Roman legal system reached a harmony on the matters of rescinding contract and damages. In this part, author takes great efforts to expound the internal reasons behind that important transformation.In the Third Section, under the guidance of Doctrine Co-existence, author tries his best to clarify the ambiguous boundaries of damages'interests. Specifically, some inspiring notions include: brief introduction to the meaning of the reliance interest and the expectation interest; Stating the respective contents of those two Interests; Figuring out the relationship between damages of the expectation interest and the validity of the contract; Finding out the reasons of creditor's choice between rescinding contract and damages caused contract breaching. The elucidation of this section is essentially based on theories of those two kinds of Interests'damages listed above. The purpose of those expounds is to clear up the theory bases and the academic standpoints of this dissertation, which could be deemed as the cores and values of this author's study efforts.In the Conclusion Section, author summarily explains the prospects and the anticipations of this academic topic. Actually, there are many virgin fields on the subject still not to be considered or thoroughly explored.
|
PDF Full Text Request