Contract Deadlock Under Continuing Contract And Its Solution

This article mainly studies the target’s response path when encountering contract deadlock.A continuation contract is different from a temporary contract.Its basic connotation is that the continuation contract lacks a definite total payment content from the beginning;the length of the payment period has a decisive significance for the determination of the total payment of the contract;generally it has unlimited continuity or indestructibility;the parties;There is a continuous duty of best effort and a strong relationship of trust between them.my country’s civil law theory has also clearly inherited these.However,because the characteristics of continuous contract payment are different from temporary contracts,it should be distinguished in the application of law,especially the termination of the contract.But at present,my country’s continuing contracts still apply similar rules to temporary contracts.From this point of view,there is no clear distinction between the two in terms of their constituent elements and legal effects.Therefore,in order to resolve the contract deadlock,it is first necessary to clarify the path of the continuation contract when it is terminated.At present,the main solutions generally include:First,the statutory cancellation of Article 94,Paragraph2-4 of the Contract Law.The second is the defense of refusal to compulsory performance in Article 110 of the Contract Law.Third,the judicial dissolution of Article 26 of the "Contract Law Judicial Interpretation II" due to changes in circumstances.On this basis,set up general termination rules based on major reasons in continuing contracts and use judicial interpretations to solve the problem of contract deadlocks that cannot be achieved objectively or that may continue to lead to a waste of social resources.The main framework of this article is as follows:The first part: Mainly the introduction and definition of the thesis topic.This paragraph focuses on analyzing the 156 samples that have been screened,sorting out the current statistical distribution of the court’s judgment reasons under contract deadlock,and pointing out that under the current contract deadlock,the court cannot resolve disputes in accordance with the existing rules of the court in accordance with the fixed interpretation logic.Therefore,the court has adopted various creative methods to terminate the contract in order to prevent the long-term harm of the continuing contract.There are more and more cases of this kind.Therefore,it is urgent to provide a common method to solve the problem.The second part: Discuss the solution path of continuing contract in the current law.It is mainly demonstrated through case studies that the statutory right of termination in Article94,Item 2-4 of the Contract Law belongs only to the observant party;the exception in Article 110 of the Contract Law belongs to the right of defense of the non-defaulting party;and the Contract Law The scope of application of the principle of change of circumstances in Article 26 of the Judicial Interpretation(2)is narrow.Strive to point out the errors in the application of these clauses in practice and the incompleteness of some of the paths from the perspective of the current law.And then clarify the main content discussed in this article: in the current legal framework for the lack of continuing contract rules,find a feasible path.The third part: The current "Contract Law" framework still does not focus on continuation contracts,so this paragraph will first introduce the particularity of continuation contract termination,which mainly includes the requirements for contract stability and contract freedom,as well as the effectiveness of termination.The above is not retroactive.Secondly,by comparing other countries’ relevant processing paths for the "dissolution" of continuing contracts,and appropriately drawing on them,mainly referring to the German law and Japanese law to resolve this issue,Germany and Japan have established two continuity contracts respectively.This kind of special termination rule is based on the rule of the right to rescind for major reasons and the rule of breach of trust.The “Draft of the Civil Code” of our country has stipulated the non-immediate termination right of the continuation contract in the second paragraph of Article 563,but there is still a lack of non-arbitrary termination based on major reasons.Therefore,we can introduce the “ordinary termination” in our civil law by comparison."And the corresponding provisions of the "special termination" system and the current differences in the application of determination in German law.Through the analysis of the constitutional elements of Article 314 of the German People and the typical cases in comparative law,it helps to understand the cancellation based on major reasons.rule.Part Four: At present,there is indeed a German non-arbitrary cancellation provision in the "Contract Law" of our country,but it is still in a special case,and it has not set non-arbitrary provisions for each specific type of continuing contract.Lift the regulations.Therefore,this paragraph will mainly discuss whether the current law needs to follow the German study to establish general provisions for non-arbitrary termination,including whether Article 94 of the Contract Law can cover all the reasons for non-arbitrary termination of continuing contracts.And based on the generalization of non-arbitrary dissolution,and the conflict resolution between the change of situation and the non-arbitrary dissolution.If after the official "Civil Code" is promulgated,the continuous contract termination rules for major reasons are not added as desired,it can be supplemented by judicial termination,and it is more reasonable to upgrade to the legislative level on the basis of the type of precedent.