On The Judicial Application Of The Breaking Party's Right Of Termination

The breaching party's right of discharge can not be derived from the normative purpose of the legal lifting system,and it is difficult to prove its legitimacy based on historical interpretation and system interpretation.It is not so much a system as a breaching party's right to discharge,rather than a solution that has been developed for certain difficult cases.In judicial practice,there are many cases involved in the breaching party's right of discharge,but for the resolution of most cases,it cannot prove its rationality in the academic sense.The supporter of the breaching party's right to discharge believes that it can explain the meaning of the principle of freedom of contract,the principle of efficiency,the principle of good faith and the meaning of article 94 of the Contract Law and the reasonableness of the system to verify the existence of the breaching party's right of discharge.However,only the principle of good faith can be self-explanatory under certain conditions.On the contrary,for other reasons,there is no sufficient persuasiveness in the face of criticism of opposing views.However,although the negative party put forward its own reasons,it failed to provide a reasonable solution to the relevant practice cases.Therefore,the discussion of the practice case involving the breaching party should pay attention not only to the theoretical proof,but also to the rationality of the result.In this way,the differences between practice and theory can be bridged as soon as possible.As far as the typical case type involved in the breaching party's right of discharge is concerned,the case of "Xinyu Company v.Feng Yumei Shop Sale Dispute" can be resolved through the circumstances change system.The basis is not to the objective basis of obstacles,but to the subjective trading basis under the obstacles of the two sides of the motive error.The parties may therefore petition the court to terminate the contract.For leasing contracts,although it is possible to learn from the comparative law of the continuing contract of the major matter termination rights to solve the breaching party's right to release the relevant case type,but put aside the differences in words,the major matter of termination right and the breaching party to lift the right to release the necessary substantive judgment elements are no different.Therefore,as far as the case is concerned,it should be further improved on the specific judgment elements,while the differences in words are secondary.In the case of the lessee in the lease contract who terminates the lease contract because of its own poor management,there is no problem of damage to the lessor,and there is no obligation to detract from it.As for the application of the "unsuitable obligation to perform on the subject matter of debt",it is clear that it is contrary to the constituent elements of the analogy to apply the interpretation.In this regard,it would not be appropriate in principle to directly support the lessee's request for discharge.In order to balance the interests of the parties,the lessee must make an active effort to find the sub-lessee in order to ensure that the lessee obtains the rent agreed upon in the original lease contract.Only in cases where the lessor does not agree to the termination of the contract and does not allow the lessee to enter into a lease contract with the sub-lessee may the lessee's request for discharge be supported on the basis of the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights.