履行不確定性之比較法研究

Abstract

在現今社會中，契約當事人間約定於未來某一時點為履行之契約型態可謂司空見慣。對於這類非於契約成立當下即時完成契約之當事人而言，除了契約成立時的契約正義和履行期屆至後的違約救濟，契約成立後到履行期屆至前的這段時間內所可能面臨的隱憂亦不容忽視。債權人於債務人之履行期屆至前，因債務人的表示、行為或某些情事而認為他方嗣後不會確實履行之情形，本文以「履行不確定性」稱之。從各國際契約法文件和他國內國法紛紛納入履行期前解消契約權和拒絕履行權等履行不確定性相關救濟之現象中，能夠應證其重要性和實益。是以，我們在討論契約法時亦應意識到履行期前履行不確定性之問題，思索法律能對這樣的當事人賦予何種保護，增加法律解決紛爭的多樣性並因應日趨複雜而變化莫測的契約實務。 我國民法第265條之不安抗辯權便為處理履行不確定性之規定，但本條要件和效果均相當有限，是否足以因應履行不確定性問題，應有探討之餘地。有鑑於此，本文透過各國際契約法文件、美國法和日本法之比較法研究，試圖確立我國在面對履行不確定性領域時應採行何種規範架構。 本文共計六章，第一章說明本文研究動機、提出問題意識並確立研究範圍。第二章介紹各國際契約法文件中有關履行不確定性之規範，CISG、PICC、PECL和DCFR等國際契約法文件多以預期違約契約解消權、未提供充分擔保之契約解消權和給付拒絕權來對應。三者之要件和效果程度不同：債權人「明顯看出債務人將根本性不履行」者，始得直接解消契約（CISG、PICC、PECL、DCFR）；債權人「合理相信債務人將根本性不履行」者，得拒絕履行並請求擔保（PICC、PECL、DCFR），若債務人未於合理期限內提供充分擔保，債權人得解消契約；債權人「合理相信債務人將不履行」或「債務人顯然將違約而非達根本性」者，得依比例拒絕履行（DCFR、CISG）。其中，未提供充分擔保之契約解消權更是至關重要的存在。 觀諸未提供充分擔保之契約解消權的基本架構，係在履行不確定性情形下肯認當事人主動請求擔保，若他方未提供擔保，並能據以解消契約，類似的規定首見於美國統一商法典第2-609條。第三章便以該條為中心，考其發展緣由、制訂過程和解釋適用。美國法院就預期違約的要件採取相當嚴格的認定標準，故契約當事人多難以確定他方的表示或行為情事是否該當預期違約的要件，若自己逕為解約而卻被法院認定他方的情事尚未達預期違約契約解消權所要求的高度明確性、終局性，自己將陷於違約責任；若自己謹慎地繼續維持契約關係，亦可能使損害日益擴大，甚至被法院認定有違損害減輕防免義務，影響自己能夠向他方請求的賠償額。實務上，當事人為了避免判斷上的兩難，遂透過自定的「不安條款」來排除風險。此類契約條款的旨趣後由法律承襲，使契約雙方當事人均能適用未提供充分擔保之契約解消權規定而在履行不確定性情形下獲得保障。 第四章則將視野轉向日本法。日本法上稱履行不確定性情形為契約危殆，雖就要件或效果之看法有所歧異，法院實務和學者見解向來仍多肯認此際當事人可取得一定權利或救濟。日本法院判決多以誠信原則或信賴保護來合理化契約危殆的給付拒絕權，各學說針對理論基礎的論述更是相當多元，或能提供不同的觀點或角度來理解、解釋契約之履行不確定性情形。有鑑於判決積累和學說發展，學界之民法修正檢討委員會和官方之法制審議會亦將不安抗辯權之明文化列入民法債權法修正的範疇。後者之審議過程中論及諸多有別傳統不安抗辯權之要點，例如危殆化事由不限於財產惡化等經濟性要素、不區分危殆化之發生時點而以預見可能性和知悉可能性來限縮，並企圖引進主動之擔保請求和契約解消權等積極性效果，可認係受前述國際趨勢之影響。最終雖未予以明文化，觀其討論內容亦可見積極性手段之重要性，對於不安抗辯權等期前違約救濟效果之疑慮，也足供我們借鑑。 對於比較法上之規範有所認識後，第五章接著省思我國不安抗辯權之現狀，進而提出改善、修法之建議。單憑我國民法第265條之要件和效果，無法妥適處理所有履行不確定性問題。本文認為，我國應放寬現行不安抗辯權的要件，並加入預期違約之直接契約解消權和未提供充分擔保之契約解消權。關於前者，要件之設定和判斷應著重於是否確實有履行不確定性，以及當事人是否確實無從預見、知悉該履行不確定性的發生。適用範圍不限於異時給付雙務契約，給付拒絕之效果得及於準備行為，並課予通知義務以免對他方造成突襲。至於後者，在履行不確定性情形下，賦予當事人一定的積極性效果，將直接契約解消權和未提供充分擔保之契約解消權配套規定。不僅改善單純給付拒絕權的被動性問題，亦可化解直接契約解消權在適用上之問題。以主動請求擔保來促使當事人積極面對履行不確定性狀態，無論最後是繼續契約關係或解消契約，均能避免當事人間契約關係懸而未決。最後，第六章總結本文之研究成果。

In recent society, it is common for contracting parties to perform in the future in accordance with the contract. In this case, apart from contractual justice applied to contract making process and remedies for an actual breach of contract, potential problems arising between the time of contracting and the deadline of performance are also critical for the parties. Insecurity of performance arises from the debtor’s expressions, conducts or other circumstances during this period is hereinafter called insecurity with respect to the performance. Most of the international uniform law instruments give the parties right to withhold its own performance pending adequate assurance of performance and right to terminate the contract upon this kind of insecurity. This demonstrates that we should focus on remedies for insecurity with respect to the performance in order to expand the range of possible dispute resolutions and respond to practice of contracts. Article 265 of Taiwan Civil Code deals with insecurity with respect to the performance while its requirements and effect are quite limited. Such regulation is incapable of perfectly fixing this problem. Therefore, this paper is going to introduce and analyze the international uniform law instruments, American Uniform Commercial Code and Japanese Law, comparing them with Taiwan Civil Code and figuring out what kind of legal framework about insecurity with respect to the performance should we establish. Chapter One describes the research motivation, problem awareness and range of research. Chapter Two is to introduce regulations of insecurity with respect to the performance in CISG, PICC, PECL and DCFR which include the right to withhold performance, termination for inadequate assurance of performance and termination for anticipatory non-performance. If prior to the date for performance by one of the parties it is clear that there will be a fundamental non-performance by that party, the other party may terminate the contract. As for a party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party, it may demand adequate assurance of due performance and meanwhile withhold its own performance. If this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract. A party may also suspend or to say withhold its own performance if it becomes apparent or it reasonably believes that there will be non-performance which is not fundamental by the other party. In particular, termination for inadequate assurance of performance plays an important role. The general rule of “adequate assurance of performance” was developed in the American Uniform Commercial Code. Chapter Three thereby moves on to Section 2-609 of Uniform Commercial Code, looking back on the development history and discussing the interpretation and application of this section. Although the party may terminate the contract if it is clear that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party, it will be in a dilemma due to the very high degree of probability required. To wait until the due date for performance may cause heavy losses if performance does not take place. To terminate may mean a liability for damages if it is later found that it was not clear that the other party would commit a fundamental non-performance. Section 2-609 enables the party to demand an assurance of performance once reasonable grounds for insecurity with respect to the performance of the other party arise and the party may further terminate the contract if this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time, avoiding from suffering the risk or dilemma mentioned above to make sure the remedy of termination can be safely used. Chapter Four lays out Japanese Law related to insecurity with respect to the performance. According to court decisions and scholars’ opinions based on diverse basic theories, the right to withhold performance is recognized when the insecurity occurs despite no express statutory provision. In view of this situation, Legislative Council of the Ministry of Justice attempted to create a new section about the right to withhold performance during the reform of the law of obligations. Even though they ultimately failed to enact the section of insecurity with respect to the performance, several elements involved in the discussion and their concerns about such regulation are what we can draw lessons from. Chapter Five provides a description of Article 265 of Taiwan Civil Code. Comparing to the international uniform law instruments, it can be seen that our legal remedy for insecurity with respect to the performance is insufficient. This paper argues that the current Article 265 of Taiwan Civil Code should be amended by loosening the requirements. The grounds of insecurity should not be limited to the deterioration of the financial situation but put emphasis on the insecurity itself. No matter when the insecurity arises, the party may be granted such remedy if it can’t foresee or know such insecurity. The aggrieved party is not only permitted to withhold its own performance but also any preparation of performance. Besides, termination for inadequate assurance of performance and termination for anticipatory non-performance should be adopted to resolve the unsettled situation and to build a fully functional institution of termination based on a breach of contract that occurs before performance is due. Finally, Chapter Six makes a summing-up of this paper.