Study On The Exercise Of The Rescission Right Of The Breaching Party In The Lease Contract

In judicial practice,there are numerous cases in which the breaching party applies for rescission of contracts,among which leasing contracts and sales contracts are the most common.In adjudication,due to the absence of provisions on the right of rescission of the breaching party before the Civil Code was promulgated,the reasons for judicial authorities to choose to support the breaching party in rescission of contracts are mostly to balance the interests of the parties,or to proceed from the perspective of good faith,"Or it may be argued that the cost of continuing to perform a contract is much higher than the benefits obtained from the contract.These trial grounds indicate that most judicial authorities support the breaching party’s right to terminate the contract.".In terms of legal application,Article 110 of the "Contract Law" is mostly used as the basis,but most of the provisions limited to non monetary debts have not been justified.The right of the breaching party to terminate the contract conforms to the principle of efficiency,and the principle of strict adherence to the contract is not entirely unbreakable.The purpose of the contract has already been achieved,and the contract deadlock has already formed.From the perspective of social and economic benefits,it also conforms to the original intention of encouraging transactions.Termination of a contract is not a means of punishment.The purpose of termination of a contract is to resolve the deadlock in the contract.Therefore,granting the breaching party the right to terminate the contract conforms to the purpose of the termination system.At the same time,providing adequate compensation for damages and the substitutability of contract performance in lease contracts are also the basis for the breaching party to apply for termination of the contract.The main manifestation of contract deadlock in a lease contract is that it is difficult to continue advancing the lease contract,especially if the lease contract should continue to be performed after the lessee has returned the leased property.At this time,the lease property is left vacant due to the deadlock in the contract,and there is also a lack of basis for the calculation of liquidated damages,although rent can be enforced,However,it is not in line with general trading habits for a lessee to still pay rent without using the leased property.Article 580 of the Civil Code provides support for the breaching party to terminate the contract,while Article 563 of the Civil Code and Article 48 of the Nine Minutes of the People’s Republic of China also provide support for explaining the rationality of the breaching party’s termination of the contract.The applicable conditions for the breaching party’s right to terminate the contract are as follows: 1.Continued performance cannot achieve the purpose of the contract;2.Failure of the person with the right to terminate to exercise the right to terminate violates the principle of good faith;3.The breaching party is not maliciously breaching the contract.The legal consequences of the breaching party’s right to terminate a contract include two aspects: contract termination and compensation for damages.The purpose of a contract should be the purpose of one party to the contract,and should not be overly demanding on the common purpose of both parties.Article 580,paragraph 2,of the Civil Code states that the right of the breaching party to apply to the judicial authority to terminate the contract is essentially a right to terminate the contract.As a judicial termination,its legal consequences need to be determined by the people’s court,while as a right of formation,the time of contract termination needs to be determined by effective legal documents.Therefore,the time of contract termination is also limited to the time of adjudication.There are two theories about the relationship between compensation for damages and termination of a contract: "selectionism" and "coexistence doctrine." In China’s practice and academia,it is generally believed that termination of a contract does not affect the assumption of liability for breach of contract,and the scope of compensation for damages cannot exceed the predictability of the breaching party when concluding the contract.In a lawsuit,the parties can choose to file a lawsuit for both the termination of the contract and the compensation for damages.After sufficient explanation,if the parties still choose to only terminate the contract,the principle of no action without notice can be applied.