【摘要】：《合同法》第410條規(guī)定的委托合同任意解除權(quán)制度賦予了委托合同雙方當(dāng)事人隨時且不需要理由的解除合同的權(quán)利。該權(quán)利存在的正當(dāng)性在于委托合同當(dāng)事人之間存在特殊信賴關(guān)系。但在現(xiàn)實經(jīng)濟(jì)活動中,尤其是在有償商事委托中,維系委托人與受托人的紐帶并非僅僅只有信任那么簡單,且法律條文過于簡潔亦無相關(guān)法律解釋予以細(xì)化,這也使得委托合同中任意解除權(quán)在實際適用中出現(xiàn)了一些負(fù)面影響,因此需要予以一定的規(guī)范及限定。本文梳理與研究了相關(guān)現(xiàn)實糾紛后發(fā)現(xiàn)委托合同任意解除權(quán)在實際適用中的問題主要體現(xiàn)在:委托合同中任意解除權(quán)與一般法定解除權(quán)的適用關(guān)系、任意解除權(quán)的適用范圍、行使任意解除權(quán)后的損害賠償范圍以及約定放棄任意解除權(quán)的效力這四個方面。本文認(rèn)為,委托合同任意解除權(quán)與一般法定解除權(quán)存在不同的立法旨趣。在具體適用中,應(yīng)當(dāng)首先尊重當(dāng)事人的意志。當(dāng)事人沒有明確表示選擇適用何種解除權(quán)時,在一般法定解除權(quán)適用條件成就時,優(yōu)先適用一般法定解除權(quán)。委托合同任意解除權(quán)的適用范圍應(yīng)當(dāng)設(shè)定一定的限度,當(dāng)該無名合同的本質(zhì)是基于信任而建立的勞務(wù)合同時,允許委托合同任意解除權(quán)的類推適用,而囊括了其他合同性質(zhì)的混合型合同不能適用委托合同任意解除權(quán)。同時,基于目前我國的立法現(xiàn)狀及司法實踐,承認(rèn)商事有償委托合同中任意解除權(quán)的存在,并通過損害賠償制度限制其濫用。行使任意解除權(quán)之后的損失賠償范圍不能簡單的認(rèn)定。在無償委托中,應(yīng)當(dāng)將賠償范圍限定在直接損失;但在有償商事委托合同中,應(yīng)當(dāng)綜合委托合同的性質(zhì)及當(dāng)事人雙方在合同履行中的行為進(jìn)行具體分析,并不否認(rèn)可得利益賠償。原則上承認(rèn)委托合同任意解除權(quán)的約定放棄的效力,但在僅基于人身信任關(guān)系而建立的委托合同中,否認(rèn)任意解除權(quán)預(yù)先約定放棄的效力。
[Abstract]:The system of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract stipulated in Article 410 of contract Law gives both parties the right to rescind the contract at any time and without reason. The legitimacy of the existence of the right lies in the existence of a special trust relationship between the parties to the entrustment contract. But in the real economic activities, especially in the paid commercial trust, the bond between the principal and the trustee is not only simple, but also the legal provisions are too simple and without relevant legal interpretation to be refined. This also causes some negative effects on the practical application of the right of arbitrary rescission in the entrustment contract, so it needs to be regulated and limited. After combing and studying the relevant practical disputes, this paper finds out that the problems in the practical application of the arbitrary rescission right of the entrustment contract are mainly reflected in: the applicable relation between the arbitrary rescission right and the general legal dissolution right in the entrustment contract, the scope of application of the arbitrary rescission right. The scope of damages after the exercise of the right of arbitrary rescission and the effect of the agreement to waive the right of arbitrary discharge. This paper holds that there are different legislative purport between the right of arbitrary rescission of entrustment contract and the general legal right of rescission. In the specific application, should first respect the will of the party concerned. When the parties do not clearly indicate which kind of right of discharge should be applied, the general legal right of discharge shall be applied first when the applicable conditions of the general legal right of discharge are achieved. When the nature of the nameless contract is a labor contract established on the basis of trust, it is allowed to apply by analogy the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. And the mixed contract including other contractual nature can not be applied to the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract. At the same time, based on the current legislative situation and judicial practice in our country, the existence of arbitrary rescission right in commercial paid commission contract is recognized, and its abuse is restricted by the system of compensation for damages. The scope of compensation for loss after exercising the right of arbitrary rescission cannot be simply determined. In the free entrustment, the scope of compensation should be limited to the direct loss; however, in the contract of commercial trust, the nature of the contract and the behavior of both parties in the performance of the contract shall be analyzed concretely. There is no denying that compensation is available. In principle, it recognizes the effect of the agreement waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission of the entrustment contract, but in the contract of entrustment established only on the basis of personal trust, it denies the effect of the prior agreement on the waiver of the right of arbitrary rescission.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：南京師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D923.6

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張良;;民法典編纂背景下我國《合同法》分則之完善——以民事合同與商事合同的區(qū)分為視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2016年09期

2 易軍;;買賣合同之規(guī)定準(zhǔn)用于其他有償合同[J];法學(xué)研究;2016年01期

3 陸青;;論法定解除事由的規(guī)范體系——以一般規(guī)范與特別規(guī)范的關(guān)系為中心[J];華東政法大學(xué)學(xué)報;2015年01期

4 蔡恒;駱電;;我國《合同法》上任意解除權(quán)的理解與適用[J];法律適用;2014年12期

5 崔建遠(yuǎn);;編纂民法典必須擺正幾對關(guān)系[J];清華法學(xué);2014年06期

6 陸青;;合同解除效果與違約責(zé)任——以請求權(quán)基礎(chǔ)為視角之檢討[J];北方法學(xué);2012年06期

7 寧紅麗;;無償合同:民法學(xué)與社會學(xué)之維[J];政法論壇;2012年01期

8 馬春元;;任意解除權(quán)的規(guī)制問題探討——兼論合同解除制度的重構(gòu)[J];鄭州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2009年06期

9 崔建遠(yuǎn);吳光榮;;我國合同法上解除權(quán)的行使規(guī)則[J];法律適用;2009年11期

10 蘇志甫;;合同解除損害賠償問題研究——兼論合同法第九十七條的適用與完善[J];人民司法;2009年19期

，

本文編號：2224977