论文部分内容阅读
英美法系的预期违约制度与大陆法系的不安抗辩制度都是合同法中重要的违约制度,其目的都是维护市场交易秩序,防止损害扩大,保护非违约方的利益,然而两者之间又存在着差异。我国《合同法》对这两种制度进行了融合,试图充分利用两者各自的优势,但在法律适用中却出现了各种矛盾和缺陷,本文对这两者进行了分析和比较,结论为合同法中对两者的引用不妥当,需要进行修改,并对此提出了一些建议。
Both the expected system of breach of contract in the common law system and the system of instinctive counterargument in the civil law system are both important systems of default in the contract law. Their purpose is to safeguard the order of market transactions, prevent damage expansion and protect the interests of non-defaulting parties. However, There are also differences. China’s “Contract Law” merges the two systems and attempts to make full use of their respective advantages. However, there are various contradictions and flaws in the application of law. This article analyzes and compares the two systems and concludes that The reference to the two in the contract law is inappropriate and needs to be revised, and some suggestions are put forward in this regard.