The Judicial Determination Of "Failure To Achieve The Purpose Of The Contract" In The Legal Dissolution Of The Contract

Paragraph 1 of article 563 of the civil code,the identification of "failure to achieve the purpose of the contract" in the contract dissolution system is essentially a problem in the application of judicial practice.If there is no accurate identification of normative elements,there is no accurate application of this clause.By analyzing the terms of contract termination,the identification of "unable to achieve the purpose of the contract" can be divided into three parts: 1 Elements of cause,i.e.force majeure,delay in performance of debts or other breach of contract;2.The connotation of the purpose of the contract itself;3.The element of result,that is,the "impossibility" of the purpose of the contract.However,there are many common problems in the identification process,such as ignoring the identification cause elements,"unclear scope of" force majeure ",different understanding of" delayed performance of debt or other breach of contract ",inconsistent understanding of the meaning of the purpose of the contract," unable to realize "identification object and standard.The reason is no more than the influence of norms and referees.This paper intends to construct a theory for judges to judge and reason directly through the way of factor separation and step-by-step identification.First,the element of reason has become the first step in determining that "the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved",and only through this step can the correctness of the subsequent determination direction be determined.The scope of the elements of cause should also be adjusted.Accidents can be included under the meaning of "force majeure" through analogical interpretation.At the same time,the impact of the modification of the clause of change of circumstances on the elements of cause should be observed from the perspective of the system,that is,when the contract can continue to be performed after the occurrence of Force Majeure but shows fairness,it should be attributed to the adjustment of the clause of change of circumstances.Second,the determination of the purpose of the contract should not be based solely on the contract motivation,contract type and contract obligations,but should follow the principle of subjectivism and objectivism,so as to explore the true meaning of the parties when signing the contract as much as possible.The identification basis includes the contents of the contract,the negotiation between the parties to the contract,the trading habits in time and space,industry practices,market environment,court consultation,and the viewpoint of the hypothetical rational third party.Third,the determination of the result element,that is,the purpose of the contract "cannot be realized",should first make it clear that this result element applies to all items of the first paragraph of article 563,rather than only the first and fourth items.The judgment that the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved should be based on the degree of hindrance caused by the influence of the elements of reason on the purpose of the contract.And in the scenarios of non performance,expected breach of contract,delayed performance,incomplete performance and obstacles to the performance of payment obligations and collateral obligations,follow this recognition principle,make accurate judgment and accurately apply the law.