Rationality Of Non-causative Responsibility For Debt

For convenient trade,the assumed liability takes an indispensable part in the civil and commercial activities since its birth,and it also play an important role to quitable distribution of trading interest.The provisions of Article 84 to Article 86 of the Contract Law of the People’s Republic of China stipulate the assumed liability.However,due to the existence of semantics and unclear legislative opinions,the assumed liabilitys are often confused in theoretical research and judicial practice.Such as the effect of the creditor’s consent to the effect of the debt agreement,and the question of whether the obligor can confront the creditor with respect to the debtor’s debt against the debtor.In essence,the problem reflects the contradiction of the distribution of benefits between the debtor,the bearer and the creditor,and the key to solve the above contradiction lies in how to treat the theory of Non-causative responsibility for debt.Based on the theory of non-causation,this paper starts from legal basis and value consideration.This paper is divided into five parts:The first part shows the typicalcase of the assumed liability relationship,leads treatment advice of judicial practice in debt transfer contract dispute cases,and summed up the controversy from the disagreement in the academic and practical circles: the applicability of Non-causative responsibility for debt.The second part is an overview of the assumed liability theory.Based on the analysis of the basic structure of the debt,this paper clarifies the meaning and content of the assumed liability system,makes its behavior in the broad and narrow sense,and puts forward the existing problems of the assumed liability system stipulated in the current law.Assumed liability to the need for research.At the same time,it analyzes the perspectives of "creditor’s rights" and "offer commitment",and points out that the debtor and the obligor inform the creditor of the behavior of the creditor,That the consent of the creditors constitutes the effect of the commitment.The third part is about the theory of non-causative responsibility for debt,the brief description of how Savigny from the "gift contract" in the "delivery" to explain the meaning of independence expressed,and derived from the debt commitment theory,that is,debt Not subject to the debt agreement(basic behavior)is invalid,was revoked,the lifting of thesituation so far,as long as meet their own elements,the legal effect.The fourth part is to prove the rationality of non-causative responsibility for debt.Mainly from the point of view of legal basis and value considerations,that is,theoretically,according to the offer promise that the debt commitment needs to be through the debt commitment agreement(offer)and the creditor agreed(commitment)to express the process,so the debt is not a de facto Legal action.Since the debt bearing agreement and the debt bearing a different meaning between the content,then the two should be independent of the legal acts,the former because of various reasons were revoked or invalid does not affect the effectiveness of the latter.In addition,from the perspective of value considerations,insisting on the bearing of the debt will cause the interests of the creditors due to the person’s bad faith is seriously violated.And with the increase in the cost of implementation,the increase in transaction risk,the creditor’s commitment to the debt will be negative,resulting in debt failure can not be achieved in reducing the cost of implementation,to resolve the important aspects of debt disputes.The fifth part is to put forward case analysis and suggestions.As the end of the whole article,the author in this part of the article shows the case of the referee opinion analysis,and the draft of the Chinese Civil Code,the debt commitment to the future in the civil law in the value and status of the prospects,and according to This raises the proposed clause of the future amendment.