Research On The Legal Issues Of Unilateral Termination Of The Contract By The Lessee In Breach Of Contract

In 2006,the Supreme People’s court announced a case in which the breaching party applied to terminate the contract,namely "Xinyu case".In this case,Xinyu company,as the defaulting party,applied to terminate the lease contract,which was supported by the court.After the case,there are more and more cases called "contract deadlock" in judicial practice.This type of case involves the issue of contract rescission,which is a special reason for the termination of contractual rights and obligations.Therefore,it has been strictly restricted in legislative and judicial practice.Therefore,the legal rescission right has always been considered to be enjoyed only by non breaching parties in traditional civil law.The appearance of "Xinyu case" has aroused academic discussion on the application of the breaching party to terminate the contract,and the views of all parties are not consistent.In judicial practice,the results of such cases are not the same,and there is no consensus on the standard of judgment.In the process of compiling the civil code,great changes have been made to the system of rescinding the contract in the contract,which has aroused the discussion on the application of the breaching party for rescinding the contract.The case discussed in this paper is that the lessee applied to terminate the contract as the breaching party,and the court supported the breaching party’s request to terminate the contract,but the judgment opinion of the court of first and second instance was not consistent with the provisions quoted,This case reflects the two most common legal theories in dealing with this kind of contract termination in practice,that is,dealing with the problem of contract deadlock according to Article 94 or Article 110 of the contract law,which has a certain reference value.The author believes that the right of the breaching party to apply for the termination of the contract can not be recognized as the legal right to terminate the contract.The right to terminate the contract by applying to the court and arbitration institutions can be called the judicial right to terminate the contract,which can not be applied as a general rule.However,in the face of the special situation of contract deadlock,it is necessary to refer to the inherent value pursuit of the contract law,such as the principles of efficiency and fairness It is reasonable to allow the breaching party to terminate the contract under the restriction of its application and constitutive requirements.Before the promulgation of the civil code,Articles 94 and110 of the contract law are often cited in such cases.However,article 94,as the source of the rights of the breaching party,obviously violates the scholars’ view that the statutory right to rescind belongs to the non breaching party,and Article 110,as the defense rule for the continued performance of the contract,can not provide a suitable legal basis for such cases.After the promulgation of the civil code,the constitution of the judicial rescission right has been reasonably limited.It is set as a right of action,which gives the breaching party a legal channel to rescind the contract.It makes up for the lack of the original legislation and makes the judicial judgment more convincing.