【摘要】：在房屋買賣過程中,購房人與房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商通過數(shù)次磋商,最終往往會簽訂諸如意向書、認(rèn)購書、備忘錄等,約定在將來的某個時間簽訂正式的房屋買賣合同,理論上,此類意向書、認(rèn)購書稱之為預(yù)約合同。實踐中,購房預(yù)約合同的應(yīng)用非常廣泛,起到了固定雙方交易機會的作用。伴隨著預(yù)約合同在房地產(chǎn)行業(yè)廣泛的應(yīng)用,糾紛也日益增多。近幾年,一種新型的糾紛讓法官疲于應(yīng)付,購房人與房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商在預(yù)約合同中約定的房屋于正式的房屋買賣合同簽訂時間到來之前,質(zhì)量出現(xiàn)了瑕疵,致使房屋不適宜居住甚至無法居住,此時購房人陷入兩難:首先,基于預(yù)約合同中約定的義務(wù),自己必須按時簽訂正式的房屋買賣合同,否則構(gòu)成違約,需要承擔(dān)違反預(yù)約合同的違約責(zé)任;反之,一旦按時簽訂正式的房屋買賣合同,自己將要得到有瑕疵的房屋,有違公正。實踐中,購房人往往不會按時簽訂正式的房屋買賣合同,而法官傾向于基于此認(rèn)定購房人違約,進而承擔(dān)相應(yīng)的違約責(zé)任,至于房屋質(zhì)量存在的瑕疵問題,待正式的房屋買賣合同簽訂之后,再去追究房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商的違約責(zé)任。如此解決糾紛的思路傾向,使得糾紛不能一次性得到解決,致使之后司法資源的再次啟動,浪費社會成本,易引發(fā)社會矛盾。另外,鑒于當(dāng)前我國關(guān)于預(yù)約的立法處于缺失狀態(tài),理論上觀點各異,如此認(rèn)定將會導(dǎo)致司法裁判標(biāo)準(zhǔn)無法統(tǒng)一等問題。鑒于此,本文嘗試通過同時履行抗辯權(quán)去解決上述問題,將房屋的完好履行作為房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商基于預(yù)約合同的從給付義務(wù),從給付義務(wù)的瑕疵履行在影響合同目的實現(xiàn)的情況下可以適用同時履行抗辯權(quán),排除遲延簽訂本約的違約責(zé)任,進而法官可以判決雙方同時履行,在房地產(chǎn)開發(fā)商提供適宜居住的房屋的同時,購房人與其簽訂正式的房屋買賣合同,可達到盡快解決糾紛,實現(xiàn)訴訟經(jīng)濟,節(jié)約社會成本,平衡雙方利益的良好效果。
[Abstract]:In the process of buying and selling houses, the buyer and the real estate developer through a number of negotiations, eventually often sign letters of intent, subscription, memorandums and so on, agreed to enter into a formal contract for the sale of housing at some time in the future, theoretically, Such a letter of intent, the subscription is called an appointment contract. In practice, the application of purchase reservation contract is very wide, which plays the role of fixed trading opportunities between the two sides. With the extensive application of appointment contract in the real estate industry, disputes are increasing day by day. In recent years, a new type of dispute has left judges struggling to deal with it, and the quality of the houses agreed between buyers and real estate developers in advance of the formal contract for the sale of houses has been flawed before the time of signing of the formal contract for the purchase and sale of houses. Because the house is unfit to live or even unable to live, the buyer is caught in a dilemma: first of all, based on the obligations stipulated in the appointment contract, he must sign a formal contract for the sale of houses on time, otherwise it would constitute a breach of contract. To be liable for breach of contract; On the other hand, once a formal contract for the sale of houses is signed on time, it is against justice that one will get a defective house. In practice, buyers often do not sign formal contracts for the sale of houses on time, and judges tend to find that buyers are in breach of contract on the basis of this, and then bear the corresponding liability for breach of contract. As for the defects in the quality of housing, the judge tends to conclude that the buyer is in breach of contract. After the formal house sale contract is signed, then investigate the real estate developer's default responsibility. So the train of thought tendency to solve the dispute, makes the dispute can not be resolved once, resulting in the re-start of judicial resources, waste social costs, easy to lead to social conflicts. In addition, in view of the lack of legislation on appointment in our country at present, there are different views in theory, which will lead to problems such as the inconsistency of judicial standards. In view of this, this article attempts to solve the above-mentioned problems by performing the right of defense at the same time, and regards the perfect performance of the house as the contingent obligation of the real estate developer based on the appointment contract. The performance of the defective performance of the payment obligation may apply to the simultaneous performance of the right of defense under the circumstances affecting the realization of the purpose of the contract, and excludes the liability for the delay in signing this contract, so that the judge may judge both parties to perform the contract at the same time. While real estate developers provide livable houses, buyers sign formal house sale contracts with them, which can solve disputes as soon as possible, realize litigation economy, save social costs and balance the interests of both sides.
【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】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 文曉鵬;王霞;;論違反預(yù)約合同的民事責(zé)任[J];黑河學(xué)刊;2013年10期

2 史浩明;程俊;;論預(yù)約的法律效力及強制履行[J];蘇州大學(xué)學(xué)報(哲學(xué)社會科學(xué)版);2013年05期

3 余燁;;預(yù)約違約責(zé)任之賠償損失問題[J];法制博覽(中旬刊);2013年09期

4 王勤勞;;商品房認(rèn)購書的性質(zhì)與法律效力[J];企業(yè)經(jīng)濟;2012年05期

5 李開國;張銑;;論預(yù)約的效力及其違約責(zé)任[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2011年04期

6 韓世遠;構(gòu)造與出路:中國法上的同時履行抗辯權(quán)[J];中國社會科學(xué);2005年03期

7 錢玉林;預(yù)約合同初論[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年04期

8 汪淵智,李志忠;抗辯權(quán)略論[J];福建政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年03期

9 徐國棟;自然法與退化論——對J.2.1.11后部的破譯[J];蘭州大學(xué)學(xué)報;2003年01期

10 韓強;論預(yù)約的效力與形態(tài)[J];華東政法學(xué)院學(xué)報;2003年01期

相關(guān)會議論文 前1條

1 任鵬飛;;論違反商品房認(rèn)購協(xié)議的法律責(zé)任[A];中國合同法論壇論文匯編[C];2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前7條

1 顧旭玫;論預(yù)約合同的違約損害賠償責(zé)任[D];吉林大學(xué);2016年

2 程敬堯;預(yù)約合同研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2015年

3 吳東堯;預(yù)約合同相關(guān)法律問題研究[D];山東大學(xué);2015年

4 李小丫;同時履行抗辯權(quán)效力研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

5 李雄湊;論同時履行抗辯權(quán)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2013年

6 張坤華;預(yù)約研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2010年

7 嚴(yán)剛;同時履行抗辯權(quán)與雙方違約研究[D];四川大學(xué);2003年

，

本文編號：2457854