Determination Of "failure To Achieve The Purpose Of The Contract" Under The Perspective Of Exercising The Statutory Right Of Terminatio

The pursuit of the common purpose is to pursue the joint basic investigation of the parties,but the parties contradict themselves and hinder the common purpose.However,since the exercise of statutory dissolution is based on the premise that the common purpose will not be realized,then there is a problem of judging whether the common purpose is real.First,a preliminary introduction to the basic theory of contract purpose,focusing on the type analysis of the abstract concept of contract purpose,provides a theoretical basis for the subsequent analysis,that is,the specific distinction of contract purpose into objective purpose and subjective purpose.The former is the general transaction purpose of the contract,and contracts of the same type have the same objective purpose,while the latter is the purpose of the parties under specific conditions,that is,the motivation,and different contracts have different subjective purposes.Since the purpose of the contract directly bears the interest demands of the parties,and has the function of explaining and supplementing the true meaning and insufficiency of the parties,countries generally not only protect the contract purpose of the parties through legislation,but also prevent the realization of the contract purpose due to the serious breach of contract by the other party.In this case,the non-breaching party is given the legal right to terminate the contract to relieve the purpose of the contract that it cannot achieve,which brings about the problem of judgment when the purpose of the contract cannot be achieved.Secondly,analyze the scope of the obligation group of the contract to determine which obligation is violated constitutes a fundamental breach of contract,thereby affecting and hindering the realization of the purpose of the contract.This part,on the basis of the theoretical obligation group of traditional contract law,determines the scope of "principal obligations" in Article 563 of my country’s "Civil Code",and then analyzes whether the breach of collateral obligations will lead to the inability to achieve the purpose of the contract,and believes that the main The debt should include the principal payment obligation,the subordinate payment obligation and the incidental obligation.At the same time,it is believed that the debtor’s breach of the incidental obligation will not constitute a fundamental breach of contract.If it cannot be realized,the non-breaching party can then exercise the statutory right of termination.Thirdly,in view of the fact that it is difficult to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of the parties by only objectively judging the purpose of the contract,the absolutization of objective judgment and its relaxation are analyzed.On the one hand,this part presents and reveals the reality and limitations of the inability to realize the objective judgment of the purpose of the contract.On the other hand,on the basis of analyzing the rationality of introducing the subjective judgment of the purpose of the contract,it advocates the limited introduction of the subjective purpose of the contract in the judicial practice of our country.Judgment,and analyze and point out the specific limiting conditions,in order to make up for the unfair results that may be brought about by the absolute objective judgment in the judgment that the pure contract purpose cannot be realized.