Research On The System Of The Breaching Party’s Right To Rescission Of Contract Deadlock ——From The Perspective Of Three Typical Cases

According to the traditional contract law theory,the right to rescind the contract is generally enjoyed by the non-breaching party to ensure the stability of the transaction.However,in judicial practice,contract deadlock objectively exists,and the breaching party is given the right to rescind due to the inability of other systems to solve the above dilemma.The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China（hereinafter referred to as "the Civil Code"）and the Minutes of the National Conference of Civil and Commercial Courts（hereinafter referred to as "the Nine Civil Minutes"）provide for the issues related to the breach party’s release from contract,which is of great significance to the breach party’s contract release.However,there are still problems that are of great significance for research.First selects three typical cases and summarizes the focus of controversy,analyzes the focus on the controversy,and focuses on the following issues: first,clarify the elements of contract deadlock.First,a party to the contract constitutes a breach of contract,which is a prerequisite for the application of the breaching party’s right to rescind under a contract deadlock;second,the other party to the contract requests a party to continue to perform the contract;third,the breaching party cannot continue to perform the contract due to objective and subjective reasons.Secondly,the conditions for the application of the breaching party’s right to rescind system are summarized to clarify the specific judgment criteria.First,failure of the breaching party to continue to perform the contract resulting in the failure to achieve the purpose of the contract;second,the breaching party’s inability to perform the contract is not transient;third,the non-breaching party’s request to continue to perform the contract violates the principle of good faith;fourth,the breaching party’s continued performance of the contract is manifestly unfair to it;fifth,the breaching party does not breach the contract in bad faith.Finally,the scope of application of the right is discussed,including not only long-term non-monetary debts and continuing contracts,but also long-term non-continuing contracts as well as monetary debt contracts.The paper is divided into four parts.The first part is an introduction.Firstly,the significance of the topic of this paper is explained,the current status of domestic research is summarized,and the views of different scholars are distilled.In addition,the research ideas and methods of this paper are clarified.Finally,the shortcomings and the problems in the article are briefly explained.The second part introduces the basic situation of the cases and raises related issues.This paper selects three typical cases and adopts a case study approach.summarize the focus of the dispute and ask relevant questions,and examines the system of the breaching party’s right of release in contract deadlock.The third part is a a legal principle analysis,which first clarifies the nature of the right and its definition,and compares the system with the system of failure to perform and change of circumstances.Finally,the conditions of application and scope of application of the system are argued.The fourth part summarizes the current state of legislation,makes positive suggestions to improve the breaching party’s right to rescind the contract,responds positively to the problems arising in judicial practice,and puts forward corresponding judicial suggestions.