Development In Objection Period System Of Terminating The Contract

This paper mainly studies the period objection of the termination of the contract. The current practice for dissent during the termination of the contract is the main basis for the article 24 content of Contract Law.But, in fact, depending on which the content of the judicial interpretation is not able to completely solve the practice problems regarding termination of the contract, it leads to more contradictions and institutional risk. To explore the essence of reason, in addition to a lack of clear provisions, the fundamental problem is the system imperfect aspects. This article embarks from the practical problems in theoretical and empirical studies, tries to break through the system the plight of various aspects to improve the system of the whole.The first part analyzes the scope of objection period of the termination of the contract. Removing the applicable during analysis of objection to terminate a contract behavior and the object, concluding that dissent during the termination of the contract is only applicable to lifting the right to terminate the behavior. And applicable legal rescission depends not only applying to the contract rescission. Rejecting the traditional objection period applicable subject theory, contract both sides are available during the period of objection to view filed objection of the termination of the contract.The second part analyzes the dissent during the termination of the contract time limit. This paper briefly describes the background of objection period of the termination of the contract. From agreement on dissent and legal objections during two aspects, the analysis of their respective meet trouble. On the one hand, though, allow the contract party decide their objection period, however, can actually prescribed or actual use of dissent during the few and far between, more of the parties to choose with specified in the notice dissent during the termination of the contract. However, the "contract" means don’t have the constraint effect. Legal objection period, on the other hand, while can be applicable, but really apply it continuously. As the limitation of 3 months, can not adapt to the realistic requirement of the contract party. Another example, dissent during the points for receiving termination notice, this setting is not reasonable. The causes of these difficulties, it is the limitations of objection way. The way on the opposition to seek breakthrough: continue to use the traditional way of lawsuit, also can increase the accusing the way, such as a written reply, and as demands continued performance, etc. Through the argument, that seek relief from the way of objection is really feasible. Again, such as, the nature of the objection period is not clear also bring dissent during the applicable. Analysis, rejected the traditional theory about the properties of the objection period. On applicable way to try to compromise, to solve problems.The third part analyzes the consequences of objection to the expiration of the period of the termination of the contract. To rebut the arguments made by the traditional form on dissent during the review. Form review: objection period, the contract is terminated immediately. A lawsuit brought for the other party, the court notice during and after the termination of the facts, only pursuant to the termination of the contract. During the objection period, however, was not scheduled, dissent after will only make opposite party loss during objection litigation(request confirmation litigation effectiveness of the termination of the contract), rather than directly led to the termination of the contract. Shared the view of substantial examination. Even if the objection period after, the other party by opposition proceedings in the court still substantial examination should be made for the effectiveness of the termination of the contract if that termination without the termination of the contract rescission, the decision behavior is invalid. In fact, the choice of the form of review and examination as to substance can also take the way of compromise review. Choice of standard should be the maximum preservation shall be applicable to the normal contract party’s interests and security system, and does not damage the judicial operation at the same time. By contrast, only the examination as to substance is more closed to the standard.