| 默示预期违约与不安抗辩权制度之比较 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 李军,刘建民.默示预期违约与不安抗辩权制度之比较[J].石家庄经济学院学报,2004,27(3):338-341. |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 李军 刘建民 |
| |
| 作者单位： | 1. 新疆大学,法学院,新疆,乌鲁木齐,830046
2. 石家庄经济学院,法学院,河北,石家庄,050031 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 我国合同法规定了默示预期违约与不安抗辩权这两种有较多相似之处的制度。对默示预 期违约与不安抗辩权两种制度加以比较,并探讨《合同法》同时规定这两种制度有无必要。
|
| 关 键 词： | 合同法 默示预期违约 不安抗辩权 比较 |
| 文章编号： | 1007-6875(2004)03-0338-04 |
| 修稿时间： | 2004年3月15日 |
Contrast between Implied Anticipatory Breach of Contract and Precarious Right to Defense |
| |
| LI Jun,LIU Jian-min.Contrast between Implied Anticipatory Breach of Contract and Precarious Right to Defense[J].Journal of Shijiazhuang University of Economics,2004,27(3):338-341. |
| |
| Authors: | LI Jun LIU Jian-min |
| |
| Abstract: | Two similar theories, implied anticipatory breach of contract and precarious right to defense, are simultaneously adopted by Chinese contract law. This paper attempts to contrast the implied anticipatory breach of contract with precarious right to defense. It is considered that there is unnecessary to simultaneously to admit those two similar theories. |
| |
| Keywords: | contract law implied anticipatory breach of contract precarious right to defense contrast |
| 本文献已被 CNKI 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
|
