Risk—assuming Rule and Contract Termination
Zhou Jianghong
2010-01-01
Abstract:With contract termination no longer needing the elements of imputation cause such as obligor's fault, the institution of termination becomes one of the systems that release parties from the contract duty. On the other hand, the rule of risk—assuming in the traditional Civil Law can also release obligee from counter—performance. Hence, an interlacing between contract termination and risk—assuming is inevitable. Whether the risk—assuming rules should be brought into the system of termination or not is becoming a problem. The Draft of the Act on the Reform of the Law of Obligations in Germany and the Draft Proposals about the Japanese Civil Code (Law of Obligations) Reform supported the former and deleted the provisions concerning risk—assuming. But the Act on the Reform of the Law of Obligations in Germany supported for the latter in the end. In China, we face the same problem. The Contract Law of PRC has also provided both rules, resulting in the confusion in the judicial practice. The monism of termination rules and the coexistence of both are the two representative models to resolve the problem. In the fields of implication, effect, procedure, application scope and the limitation of period, both similarities and differences exist between risk—assuming rule and contract termination, and each has its strong points. A conclusion is that, if we adopt the monism model, the system arrangement should fill up the blank with the abolishment of the risk—assuming rules, and if not, the application relationship between them should be clarified. As to the interpretation of the Contract Law of PRC, when the risk is taken by obligor, obligee may select risk—assuming rule or contract termination, with the limitation of termination, the limitation in liquidation and the counterplea be dealt in particular. When the risk is taken by obligee, the termination cannot be selected. In the situation of defective performance, § § 148 and 149 should be applied, with the rationality of § 148 needing further consideration. When otherwise agreed by the parties about risk—assuming, the agreed has priority. The rules of lease contract or partial termination can be applied by analogy in long—term contracts, and § 148 could also be applied by analogy in the risk allocation in liquidation.