The Case Analysis On The Dispute Of House Sales Contract Between Su Mou And Chang Mou

Both the civil law system's uneasy defense system and the common law system's anticipatory breach system have the functions of balancing the interests of both parties,reducing losses,and ensuring the security of transactions.So far,it has been borrowed and emulated by many countries and regions.In view of the great superiority of this system,the law of contract in China also established the system of uneasy right of defense and expected breach of contract.The right of uneasy defense means that in a two-way service contract with a sequential performance order,the first performing party has definite evidence to prove that the second party cannot perform the contract,and the second performing party is unable to provide appropriate guarantee or restore the ability of performance to give the first performing party sufficient security,then the performer has the right to temporarily suspend performance of the contract;Expected breach of contract refers to that before the performance period,one party clearly indicates that it will not perform the contract after the performance period,or its behavior indicates that it will not be able to perform the contract after the performance period.When one party in the dual contract has the risk of failing to perform the contract,the other party can use the expected default system and the uneasy right of defense system to effectively deal with the changes,so as to reduce its own losses and protect its legitimate rightsand interests.Therefore,it is of great value to study this system.This paper introduces a case to discuss the improvement and development of China's expected breach of contract system and uneasy right of defense system.In the case of the dispute between Su Mou and Chang Mou in the house sale contract reviewed and analyzed in this article,the focus of the dispute mainly includes two: the judgment standard of anticipatory breach of contract and the conditions for exercising the right of uneasy defense.This article analyzes the case on the basis of China's legal provisions on unsafe defense,anticipatory breach of contract,and relevant views in academia,and concludes that Chang's oral price increase does not constitute the expected breach of contract and Su's should not exercise the right of uneasy defense.Finally,the related perfect suggestions are put forward for the inadequacies of China's uneasy defense right system and the expected breach system,including:improving the system of proof of the expected breach of contract,clearing the system of the right of withdrawal of the expected breach of contract,improving the system of burden of proof of the uneasy defense right,and improving relevant provisions prohibiting abuse of the right of unrest.