Research On The Determination Of Excessive Contract Performance Cost

According to Article 580,Paragraph 1,Item 2 of Civil Code,in non-monetary debts,when the performance cost of the contract is too high,the debtor can exclude the creditor’s request for continued performance.However,what is meant by excessively high contract performance,and how to determine the standard is still in doubt.Judgments rely on subjective thoughts,and most of them directly invoke without reasoning,making this rule somewhat arbitrary in current judicial practice.Therefore,it is also necessary to clarify the identification standards of excessively high contract performance in order to standardize the application of practice and achieve simultaneous judgment in the same case.This article follows the logical thinking of "propose a problem-analyze a problem-solve a problem".After asking the question,it first explores the theoretical basis of excessively high identification,and based on this,clarifies the definition method of performance cost,and unifies the reference object of excessively high evaluation.Finally,it analyzes which standard the performance cost should meet compared with the reference object,and forms a systematic judgment standard for the determination of excessively high.The first chapter raises questions,which not only reveals the shortcomings of the current judicial practice,but also reflects the controversy of theoretical research,and pave the way for follow-up research.The second chapter mainly discusses the theoretical basis for the determination of excessively high contract performance.The economic efficiency theory held by the existing viewpoints focuses on the economic rationality of performance costs and cannot solve the non-ethical problem of breach of contract.In the long run,it will undermine the efficiency that it relies on.In practice,whether the purpose of the contract can be achieved is often used as the condition for determining that the performance cost is too high,but in reality it limits the scope of application of the rules.The determination of excessive performance costs should return to the level of interest balance.The essence is to adjust the conflict of interest between the two parties,to protect the creditor’s interest and contract authority while avoiding the debtor from suffering excessive damage,so as to ensure the relative balance of the contract relationship.The third chapter mainly analyzes the performance cost and its reference objects in detail.The nature of performance costs is the loss of benefits that may be brought to the debtor by the continued performance,and the reference object for its over-evaluation should be the benefits that the creditor can obtain through the performance of the contract.In the specific definition process,the performance cost should be an abnormal additional burden,with the attributes of a debtor,including the cost of supplementing and correcting the performance,but the cost of performing the accompanying obligations should be excluded.The scope includes money cost,opportunity cost and time cost,but it is not appropriate to take the court’s execution cost and the debtor’s mental and emotional disinterests into consideration.The creditor’s interest as the reference object mainly includes the performance interest and special interest that the creditor enjoys in the performance of the contract.The fourth chapter mainly elaborates on what standard the performance cost should be compared with the reference object before it can be judged to be too high.It is too rigid to use precise numerical standards as the boundary of whether to continue to perform or not,and cannot meet the flexible needs of different cases in practice.In judging that the cost of contract performance is too high,interest analysis and measurement should be carried out on the actual case.The standard is that the performance cost to commend the debtor’s interests is seriously out of balance with the creditor’s interests.Continued performance is inconsistent with the creditor’s point of view and honesty and credibility.Obviously unfair.In addition,factors such as the liability of the debtor,the content of the contract,the difficulty of the alternative transaction,and the performance involving third-party interests or collective interests will also affect this judgment standard and cause it to deviate to a certain extent.