發(fā)布時(shí)間：2019-04-03 12:41

【摘要】：《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》(以下簡(jiǎn)稱(chēng)公約)宣告合同無(wú)效制度,是國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同當(dāng)事人的重要救濟(jì)措施之一。該制度對(duì)于對(duì)保護(hù)當(dāng)事人的合法權(quán)益,促進(jìn)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同順利有效進(jìn)行起著十分重要的作用。宣告合同無(wú)效是一種嚴(yán)厲的救濟(jì)方法,一旦成立會(huì)導(dǎo)致合同消滅并且恢復(fù)原狀,對(duì)當(dāng)事人的權(quán)利影響甚巨。根據(jù)契約信守的理念,合同當(dāng)事人應(yīng)該嚴(yán)格按照約定履行自己的義務(wù)。但是在國(guó)際貿(mào)易的實(shí)踐中,若一方當(dāng)事人存在根本違約,致使合同目的不能實(shí)現(xiàn),直接剝奪受害方根據(jù)合同有權(quán)期待獲得的東西,從公平的角度理應(yīng)允許受害方享有選擇擺脫合同束縛的權(quán)利。此外,由于國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同履行費(fèi)用高昂,違約方宣告合同無(wú)效從而解除合同而不是要求違約方繼續(xù)實(shí)際履行,對(duì)于違約方也是有利的。正確認(rèn)識(shí)和理解公約宣告合同無(wú)效制度,對(duì)國(guó)際貿(mào)易的違約救濟(jì)法和整個(gè)貿(mào)易法都具有十分重要的意義,同時(shí)對(duì)完善我國(guó)法律中相應(yīng)的合同法定解除具有借鑒意義。 《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同公約》作為規(guī)范國(guó)際貨物貿(mào)易的統(tǒng)一法,其宣告合同無(wú)效制度融合兩大法系合同法定解除制度和違約制度等理論。本文以公約宣告合同無(wú)效制度為對(duì)象,采用大陸法、英美法及公約相關(guān)規(guī)則的梳理、分析和比較,力求廓清公約宣告合同無(wú)效制度的一般規(guī)則。為達(dá)此目的,本文采用條文比較方法和案例分析方法,注重法律規(guī)則的規(guī)范性分析的同時(shí),輔以相關(guān)案例進(jìn)行佐證, 文章分五部分進(jìn)行論述：第一部分簡(jiǎn)述聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際銷(xiāo)售合同公約的基本背景及其宣告合同無(wú)效制度的基本內(nèi)容,指出本文的立題目的和研究意義。第二部分從比較法的角度介紹公約宣告合同無(wú)效的三種發(fā)生原因,即根本違約、針對(duì)遲延履行的寬限期制度、預(yù)期根本違約的來(lái)源以及公約的相應(yīng)規(guī)定,以及介紹特別情形分批交貨合同適用宣告合同無(wú)效的不同情況。第三部分關(guān)于宣告合同無(wú)效權(quán)的行使程序和限制條件。第四部分分析公約宣告合同無(wú)效制度的法律效果。第五部分概述我國(guó)對(duì)應(yīng)的合同解除制度并分析存在的問(wèn)題,有針對(duì)性地根據(jù)公約宣告合同無(wú)效制度提出借鑒意見(jiàn)。 最后,在結(jié)束語(yǔ)部分,回顧了本文在寫(xiě)作過(guò)程中對(duì)宣告合同無(wú)效制度理解的逐步深化,再次點(diǎn)明文章的寫(xiě)作目的和研究重點(diǎn)。
[Abstract]:The contract annulment system of the United Nations Convention on the contract for International Sale of goods (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) is one of the important relief measures for the parties to the contract of international sale of goods. This system plays a very important role in protecting the legal rights and interests of the parties and promoting the smooth and effective operation of the international contract for the sale of goods. Annulment of contract annulment is a severe relief method, once established, it will lead to the elimination and restitution of the contract, which has a great impact on the rights of the parties. According to the concept of abiding by the contract, the parties to the contract should fulfill their obligations in strict accordance with the agreement. However, in the practice of international trade, if there is a fundamental breach of contract by one party and the purpose of the contract cannot be realized, the injured party is directly deprived of what the injured party is entitled to expect under the contract. From a fair point of view, the injured party should be allowed the right to choose to get out of the bondage of the contract. In addition, due to the high cost of the performance of the international contract for the sale of goods, the defaulting party annulled the contract so as to cancel the contract instead of requiring the defaulting party to continue to perform the contract in practice, which is also beneficial to the defaulting party. The correct understanding and understanding of the contract annulment system is of great significance to the relief law of breach of contract and the whole trade law in international trade, and it is also of great significance to perfect the corresponding legal rescission of contract in our country's law. The United Nations Convention on contracts for the International Sale and Sale of goods, as a uniform law regulating international trade in goods, its annulment system combines the two legal systems, such as the legal rescission of contracts and the system of breach of contract. This article takes the convention annulment system as the object, uses the continental law, the common law and the convention relevant rule combs, analyzes and compares, strives to clarify the convention annulment contract annulment system general rule. In order to achieve this purpose, this article uses the article comparison method and the case analysis method, pays attention to the normative analysis of the legal rules, at the same time, carries on the corroboration with the related case. The article is divided into five parts: the first part briefly describes the basic background of the United Nations Convention on International sales contracts and the basic contents of the annulment system of contract annulment, and points out the topic and research significance of this paper. The second part introduces the three causes of contract annulment from the perspective of comparative law, namely, fundamental breach of contract, the system of grace period for delay of performance, the source of expected fundamental breach of contract and the corresponding provisions of the Convention. As well as the special case of partial delivery contract applicable to annulment of contract annulment of different circumstances. The third part of the exercise of the right to declare a contract invalid procedures and restrictions. The fourth part analyzes the legal effect of the contract annulment system. The fifth part summarizes the corresponding system of rescission of contract in our country and analyzes the existing problems, and puts forward some suggestions for reference according to the system of annulment of contract in accordance with the Convention. Finally, in the conclusion part, the author reviews the gradual deepening of the system of annulment of contract in the process of writing, and points out the writing purpose and research focus of the article again.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D923.6;D996.1;D997.1

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 韓文江;;淺析CISG的預(yù)期違約制度[J];重慶科技學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年10期

2 吳曉燕;;試析國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同與國(guó)內(nèi)貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)合同之比較——以CISG和中國(guó)合同法為例[J];法制與社會(huì);2009年09期

3 王增巖;;論分批交貨合同中的宣告無(wú)效制度——《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售合同公約》第73條評(píng)析[J];法制與社會(huì);2010年07期

4 蔡春生;國(guó)際貨物買(mǎi)賣(mài)中預(yù)期違約和分批交貨合同違約的救濟(jì)方法[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易問(wèn)題;1991年02期

5 蔡春生;試論《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售合同公約》關(guān)于實(shí)際履行的規(guī)定[J];國(guó)際貿(mào)易問(wèn)題;1991年09期

6 韓世遠(yuǎn);根本違約論[J];吉林大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);1999年04期

7 馬克·R.舒爾曼;;商人、法律人與法治(英文)[J];武大國(guó)際法評(píng)論;2009年02期

8 王利明;論根本違約與合同解除的關(guān)系[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1995年03期

9 張用江,汪少鵬;關(guān)于合同解除的幾個(gè)問(wèn)題[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);1998年03期

10 崔建遠(yuǎn);解除權(quán)問(wèn)題的疑問(wèn)與釋答(上篇)[J];政治與法律;2005年03期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 郝磊;合同解除權(quán)制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 李江;合同解除權(quán)制度的比較法研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

2 徐光新;論CISG中的預(yù)期違約制度及對(duì)中國(guó)的借鑒[D];安徽大學(xué);2007年

3 裴媛;《聯(lián)合國(guó)國(guó)際貨物銷(xiāo)售合同公約》中的預(yù)期違約制度研究[D];廈門(mén)大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2453221