|
| 文章编号：1672-3104(2014)01-0114-07 |
| |
|
合同解除效果：《合同法》第97条的解释论 |
| |
靳羽 |
| |
|
（西南政法大学民商法学院，重庆，401120） |
| |
| 摘 要： 关于《合同法》第97条规定的合同解除的法律效果，学界历来有“直接效果说”“折中说”“区分说”三种不同的解释路径，司法判例亦长期不统一。在我国现行法体系内，有体物、受领劳务及金钱返还义务与不当得利返还义务在正当性基础、要件事实方面均存在差异。在标的物毁损灭失场合，因风险负担规则的介入，以不当得利返还义务解释此时的返还义务亦不够妥当。但是，“直接效果说”与“折中说”的差异不应过分夸大，两者的区别更多地体现为逻辑自足性的优劣，从实务效果角度观察却并无根本性区别。 |
| |
| 关键词： 合同解除；溯及力；返还义务；不当得利；损害赔偿 |
| |
|
| |
The effect of contract termination: the interpretation of Article 97 of the Contract Law |
| |
JIN Yu |
| |
（School of Civil and Commercial law, Southwest University of Political Science and Law, Chongqing 401120, China） |
| |
| Abstract: About the legal effect of contract termination of the Contract Law Article 97, academics has three different ways for explanations, namely, a direct effect doctrine, compromise doctrine and the distinction doctrine. In our current law system, there are physical things, taking delivery of services and the obligation to return the money to be returned with the unjust enrichment obligations based on legitimacy and there are differences in factual elements. Where damage or loss in the subject matter, because the rules of the burden of risk involved in order to explain this point while the return obligations are not quite proper. However, the differences betweem “direct effect doctrine” and the “compromise doctrine” should not be exaggerated, which reflected in more logical merits of self-sufficiency, but from a practical perspective effect there is no fundamental difference. |
| |
Key words: termination of the contract; retroactive; return obligation; unjust enrichment; damages |
| |
|
|
