Research On The Rules Of Contract Termination Of The Breaching Party

Article 48 of the Jiu Min Minutes and Article 580,Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code respectively stipulate the rules for the termination of the contract by the breaching party.Because the normative language is slightly abstract and broad,it may improperly expand the scope of application of the rules for the termination of the contract by the breaching party.This is contrary to the legislative purpose that the breaching party can terminate the contract only under certain conditions.It is necessary to clarify the applicable conditions and scope of the termination of the contract by the breaching party,the subject of termination,the way of exercising rights,and the timing of termination of the contract through the interpretation of the content of the specification.Although the rules on the termination of the contract of the breaching party have been written into the Civil Code,there are endless criticisms and doubts about this provision.There are also opinions that the design of the system is unreasonable and an alternative plan is proposed.First of all,it responds positively to criticisms and doubts.The breaching party ’ s contract termination system is an appropriate relaxation of the principle of strict adherence to the contract.It does not violate traditional moral concepts and can clarify the legitimacy of the breaching party’s contract termination system.The contract termination system of the breaching party is conducive to the balanced redistribution of social and economic resources,so as to achieve the purpose of rational and efficient use of economic resources.It conforms to the green principles of the Civil Code and conforms to the efficiency principles of the Contract Law.The scope of application of the principle of change of circumstance cannot completely overlap with the scenario in which the defaulting party terminates the contract.The precondition of non-attribution also excludes the possibility of the defaulting party applying its cancellation of the contract on certain occasions,so its scope of application is limited;the derogation rules can only require The observant party bears responsibility for the enlarged loss caused by the breach of contract liability,but cannot deprive it of the right to request the continued performance of the contract;the major cause cancellation rules in German law are incompatible with my country’s cancellation system.After the possibility of actual performance is ruled out,the passive performance defense cannot make the contract subject out of the contract deadlock.Examining existing judicial judgments,the defaulting party is obliged to pay money in some disputes over the contract termination of the breaching party.Contracts of this type of obligation are not included in the scope of the breaching party’s contract termination rules.It is necessary to expand the scope of application by expanding the interpretation.An order to terminate the contract while also ordering the breaching party to bear the liability for breach of contract is an out-of-scope judgment.The understanding of the subject of litigation costs is rather confusing.When the defaulting party who is obligated to pay monetary benefits appeals to terminate the contract,the scope of application of the defaulting party ’s contract termination rules should be expanded,focusing on whether the performance cost is too high and whether the defaulting party has lost its economic performance.The judiciary should follow the basic principle of non-suggestion and negligence.The observant party must file a counterclaim or claim liability for breach of contract.Even if the court supports the breaching party to terminate the contract,the breaching party shall bear the litigation costs.