Article 563, Paragraph 1, Item 1, Of The Civil Code

Article 563.1.1 of the Civil Code provides that if the purpose of a contract cannot be realized due to force majeure,the parties may rescind the contract.As for this article,it can be divided into the constitutive requirements of cause and the constitutive requirements of result.As the constitutive requirements of result,the meaning of "the purpose of the contract can not be realized" is not clear.Through the study of legislative history and comparative law,it can be found that the preliminary meaning of "the purpose of the contract can not be realized" in this article lies in the substantial deprivation of the interests expected by the parties to conclude and perform the contract,and should be overall and final.On the basis of clarifying the preliminary meaning of "the purpose of the contract cannot be realized",the scope of the constitutive requirements of cause in this Article shall be expanded.Where a party concerned is deprived of its expected benefits due to objective reasons other than force majeure,the party concerned shall be granted the statutory right of rescission.As the influence of force majeure on the performance of the contract is different,it is necessary to apply the rules of rescission of contract and the change of circumstances respectively.Article 533 of the Civil Code removes the expression of "non-force majeure" on the basis of Article 26 of the Interpretation II of the Contract Law.Since the amended rule on change of circumstances has included the circumstance of difficult performance,the interpretation of "failure to achieve the purpose of the contract" in the rule on rescission of the contract shall be restricted,and in essence only includes the circumstance of complete failure to perform and the circumstance of delayed or partial performance that affects the realization of the purpose of the contract.This conclusion is not only in line with the legislator's design purpose of statutory rescission and change of circumstances,but also in line with the current judicial policy of encouraging transactions and stabilizing the market.