摘要
解除效果之折衷说不符合我国合同法第97条规定的文义和规范意旨;解除不消灭合同关系之说不符合客观事实;将恢复原状义务作为合同解除导致的返还债务存在着难以克服的弱点。折衷说对于我国合同法第98条的解读、对于合同与违约损害赔偿之间的依存关系的认识存在着误区,在利益衡量方面处于劣势。在合同无效、合同被撤销和合同解除三者之间关系的把握上,折衷说看错了法律评价的重心。折衷说关于解除权行使的行为引起物权变动之说不能成立。
There are different opinions among scholars as to whether the legal effect of contract dissolution prescribed by Chinese Contract Law accords with the theory of direct effect or the theory of eclecticism. The theory of direct effect holds that the contract dissolution has the retroactive effect, and the obligations not carried out needs not to be performed any more, while the obligations already carried out should be restituted. And the theory of eclecticism believes that the obligations not carried out do not exist any longer from the time of dissolution, which accords with the theory of direct effect, while the obligations already carried out still exist and new obligation of restitution comes into being, which accords with the theory of indirect effect.
出处
《法学研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2012年第2期52-70,共19页
Chinese Journal of Law
关键词
合同解除折衷说直接效果说恢复原状返还债务
dissolution of a contract, the theory of eclecticism, the theory of direct effect, restitution
