摘要
《合同法》第96条第1款并非赋予非解除方异议权以抗衡解除权,非解除方本质上是通过诉权来制约解除权的。依据民事诉讼规则,合同解除纠纷双方都应具有提起确认之诉的权利。对《合同法解释(二)》第24条的解释应遵循其文义,坚持在逾期起诉的情况下,合同解除效力的确认采取形式审查,使逾期未提出异议的合同无争议地终止,以尽快确定法律关系。经形式审查而被终止的合同在清算阶段应重新进行实质审查,经审查发现解除方实质上无解除权,解除方应承担相应的违约责任,以保护守约方的利益。
The first clause of Article No. 96 of the Contract Law does not confer the non-defaulting party the right of dissent to fight against the right of rescission. The non-defaulting party essentially restricts the right of rescission through just claim. According to civil procedure rules, both parties of the contract should have the right to initiate a confirmative lawsuit. The interpretation of the Article No. 24 of the Judicial Interpretation of Contract Law（Ⅱ） should follow its literal meaning. In the case of overdue prosecution, the confirmation of effectiveness of the contract termination should be subject to formal examination and the contract without objection shall be terminated without dispute so as to determinate the legal relationship as soon as possible. The contract terminated by formal examination will be subject to a substantive review in the liquidation period. If the party who terminates the contract is substantially free from the right of rescission after the review, he has to bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract in order to protect the interests of the counterpart.
出处
《北京政法职业学院学报》
2017年第3期68-72,共5页
Journal of Beijing College of Politics and Law
关键词
异议权
解除异议
确认之诉
实质审查
形式审查
right of dissent
the dissent to rescission
confirmative lawsuit
formal examination
substantive review
