| Paragraph 1 of Article 580 of the Civil Code stipulates the rule of excessively high performance expenses,but there is no uniform recognition standard for this rule,whether in theory or in practice.In order to improve the accuracy of judicial application,it is necessary to start from the system of civil law and combine the cases involving excessive performance expenses in judicial practice,analyze the scope of debtor’s performance expenses by type,and determine the specific criteria for determining the excessive performance expenses.As the most typical type of contractual relationship,the sales contract is the most typical type of contractual relationship.The rules for determining that the performance expense is too high can be used as a general rule to apply to other types of contractual relationships.The debtor’s performance expenses include unforeseen auxiliary expenses and expenses for overcoming performance obstacles.However,due to the particularity of the subject matter of the house sales contract,only when the seller violates the delivery obligation and cannot be registered because the subject matter does not meet the administrative requirements but can still be rectified,the unforeseen auxiliary costs incurred and the obstacles to overcome the performance are generated.Expenses incurred are fulfillment expenses.The determination rules in lease contracts can be applied to other continuing contracts by reference.In non-term lease contracts,all expenses paid by the debtor for continued performance are performance expenses;in fixed-term lease contracts,performance expenses include unforeseeable auxiliary expenses and The expense of overcoming obstacles to fulfillment.A contract of acceptance can contain a variety of contract forms,and because of its similarity to a sales contract,it is advisable to refer to the applicable sales contract’s determination rules for excessive performance expenses.The specific judgment of the "too high" performance fee is divided into two aspects,one is the selection of the comparison object,and the other is the judgment of the specific degree of "too high".Based on the priority of actual performance and the right relief function it has as a way of assuming liability for breach of contract,the debtor’s performance expenses should be compared with the creditor’s performance benefits,and only when the two are extremely unbalanced can it be justified to exclude continued performance.As for whether the two constitute "excessive",the specific degree should be judged on the basis of "serious disproportion".Among them,when the creditor’s performance benefits can be quantified in money,"serious disproportion" can be expressed in the form of "several multiples";when the creditor’s continued performance enjoys specific benefits that are difficult to quantify,the overall proportion should be compared to achieve "serious disproportion".disproportionate” would constitute an exorbitant cost of fulfillment. |
