With the acceleration of the process of governing the country according to law and the improvement of people's awareness of safeguarding rights, various contracts appear in our lives and affect all aspects of us. At the same time, however, non-performance of the contract happens from time to time, which seriously affects our lives, even brings a devastating blow to the parties and causes a bad social impact. The nature of contractual liability has long been controversial in academic and judicial circles, and there are three main opinions: one holds that contractual liability belongs to the nature of compensation, which is to compensate creditors for their losses, that is, creditors get relief for the actual losses caused by the injured party's breach of contract. The second view is that contractual liability is a legal sanction for breach of contract, which is punitive and the liquidated damages can be higher than the actual losses of the injured party. This is from the perspective of the defaulting party, thinking that responsibility itself is a kind of sanction. The third point of view is that contractual liability is both compensatory and punitive, but it is mainly compensatory. Therefore, it is of great significance to study the contract liability system and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the injured party, both for the practice and theoretical research of contract law.

By comparing the current international and Chinese academic research on the content of multiple contractual liabilities, this paper focuses on some basic issues such as the form of contractual liabilities, and on this basis, puts forward some views on the construction of China's contractual liability system. key word

Contract Liability Contract Obligations Chapter I Overview of Contract Liability

(A) the definition and system of contractual liability

In the civil law system, contract liability is usually called liability for breach of contract, which refers to the legal liability that the parties to a contract bear according to law when they fail to perform their contractual obligations. From this definition, we know that "liability for breach of contract" is the product of breach of contract obligations. At the same time, it embodies the legislative intention of legislators to punish the breach of contract obligations, which is to investigate the liability of the defaulting party for breach of contract. The contractual liability system thus constructed is that non-performance of contractual obligations is divided into various forms of breach of contract, and different contractual liabilities are set according to different forms of breach of contract. "Responsibility" has become the basic point of defining contract responsibility and constructing contract system in civil law system.

The common law system does not use the concept of contractual liability, and a similar concept is "remedy for breach of contract". According to the definition of "remedy" in Item 34 of Article 102 1 of the United States Uniform Commercial Code, the so-called "remedy for breach of contract" refers to the right of the other party (the injured party) to seek help through or without the court after one party breaches the contract. It can be seen that in the Anglo-American legal system, when one party breaches the contract, the court first considers what relief rights to give the creditor from the perspective of protecting the interests of the creditor (the injured party), which is different from the mainland's consideration of how to investigate the defaulting party's liability for breach of contract. In addition, the rights of these remedies will not be affected by one party's breach of contractual obligations. It can be seen that the Anglo-American legal system emphasizes the relationship between rights and responsibilities, and the relationship between rights and remedies, so that the responsibility system constructed is centered on "remedy for breach of contract", and the form of breach of contract is only a condition for setting auxiliary conditions and scope for the exercise of various remedies. In a word, the basic point of the contract liability system in Anglo-American law system is the creditor's right of relief.

China's contract law adopts the concept of "liability for breach of contract". From the above analysis and comparison, the author thinks that it is more reasonable to substitute "remedy for breach of contract" for "contractual liability" for three main reasons: First, as mentioned in the above analysis, the concept of "contractual liability" in civil law system focuses on the uncertainty evaluation of the defaulting party, and legal sanctions are also set from how to investigate the defaulting party. At present, the adoption of no-fault liability in China's contract law shows that China's contract system has changed from the concept of "remedy for breach of contract" in Britain and the United States, from the original focus on sanctioning breach of contract to providing adequate relief to creditors. Adopting "remedy for breach of contract" is more in line with the development trend of contract law. Secondly, in the civil law system, the types and constitutive requirements of contractual liability are legal, and the debtor's breach of contract must conform to the types of contractual liability in the current law and meet its prescribed requirements, otherwise the creditor will not get relief, which virtually limits the realization of the creditor's interests. However, the concept of "remedy for breach of contract" is inclusive and open, and there will be no situation that relief cannot be obtained because of the type of contract liability recognized by the current law, so as to better protect the interests of creditors and adapt to the growing needs of modern complex society. Thirdly, there are some clearly defined relief measures in the civil law system, such as the termination of the contract, which is controversial in academic circles. If "the remedy for breach of contract" is used instead of "the contract liability", it can reduce the voice of disputes, achieve unity and promote the prosperity of trading gardens and social economy.

(b) Nature of contractual liability

The nature of contractual liability has long been controversial in academic and judicial circles, and there are three main opinions: one holds that contractual liability belongs to the nature of compensation, which is to compensate creditors for their losses, that is, creditors get relief for the actual losses caused by the injured party's breach of contract. The second view is that contractual liability is a legal sanction for breach of contract, which is punitive and the liquidated damages can be higher than the actual losses of the injured party. This is from the perspective of the defaulting party, thinking that responsibility itself is a kind of sanction. The third point of view is that contractual liability is both compensatory and punitive, but it is mainly compensatory.

The author agrees with the third opinion for the following reasons: First, from the legislative purpose of contract liability, it is to maintain the seriousness of contract and the order of market economy. The occurrence of breach of contract is generally manifested as a certain degree of damage, which occurs between the breaching party and the observant party and is related to the breach of contract by the breaching party. According to the theory of retribution, it is necessary to find the balance point of interest conflict between the observant party and the defaulting party, give the observant party the right relief and compensate its losses. At the same time, punish the defaulting party and realize the fair value of social law.

Secondly, from the inherent requirements of contractual liability, it mainly focuses on the right relief to give creditors benefits and make up for their losses. This kind of loss should include some parts that cannot be accurately calculated. In a sense, this part is punitive to the defaulting party, while the computable part is compensatory.

Thirdly, from the perspective of the parties' expression of will, when concluding a contract, both parties hope to get the expected benefits from the contract, so there is a dependency relationship. To this end, both parties voluntarily set some safeguard clauses to facilitate the realization of the contract. In case of breach of contract, the observant party will naturally get the right to claim compensation for losses, and the breaching party will bear the punishment. The acquisition of rights and the setting of obligations between the parties are based on the wishes of both parties, and the law should support them as long as they do not violate the law and are fair and goodwill.

Finally, from the social effect of contract responsibility, we should support its positive aspects to social development. If the contractual liability is limited to compensation, once the dispute reaches the court or arbitration organ, it will take a lot of time to find out some minor problems or hidden losses that are really difficult to find, which will waste unnecessary manpower and material resources, be useless to social resources and increase the workload of judicial organs. It is best to make a timely ruling according to the contractual agreement of the parties. Only when the penalty is too high or unreasonable, the court can change it, which is conducive to the settlement of disputes, and can also reduce the trouble of proof and cross-examination, in line with the principle of litigation economy.

(3) the scope of contract responsibility

Academic circles have different understandings of the scope of contractual liability. It is generally believed that contract liability is the liability for breach of contract in the contract system, which is also fully reflected in Chapter VI of the General Principles of Civil Law. In this chapter, legislators only stipulate two forms of liability: civil tort liability and breach of contract liability, which will inevitably mislead people's thinking. At present, this division has been proved to be inappropriate in judicial practice and theoretical research.

The main reason for the different definition of the scope of contract responsibility lies in the different understanding of the concept of contract. At present, there are the following viewpoints. One view is that the concept of contract only includes valid contracts. Invalid contract itself is illegal and does not belong to the scope of the contract, so it only produces the scope of responsibility from the time when the contract is valid to the time when the contract is performed, that is, the liability for breach of contract. Another view is that contracts include not only valid contracts, but also invalid contracts. This view extends the contract period to the time before the contract comes into effect and after its establishment, which is not beneficial, but a great progress. However, some scholars believe that the concept of contract includes not only valid contracts, but also invalid contracts. In addition, it should also include the responsible conclusion stage and the post-contract stage after the contract is eliminated. In this way, it includes the whole stage of conclusion, establishment, entry into force, performance and post-contract obligations.

I agree with the last view. The main reason is that contracts are always based on the principle of good faith. From the day people began to conclude contracts and make offers, the two sides have been interdependent. They believe that the other party will truly express their wishes, negotiate the contract in good faith, keep their offers and commitments, and fulfill their obligations under the contract. From the date of the conclusion of the contract, the contractual obligations must be fulfilled according to the principle of good faith, and after the contract comes into effect, the contractual obligations will of course be fulfilled. After the contract is completed, the parties also have post-contract obligations based on the principle of good faith, such as free warranty obligations within a certain period of time. Therefore, it can be said that from the date of signing the contract to the completion of performance, it should belong to the scope of the contract.

Based on the above understanding, the scope of contract liability should include four forms: liability for contracting fault, liability for anticipatory breach of contract and contractual liability after breach of contract.

Chapter II Types of Contract Liability

(1) Liability for negligence in concluding a contract

(1) Definition of liability for fault in contracting

The fourth view is that the contracting responsibility is a kind of responsibility arising from "carelessness". This is a theory put forward by Mr. Wang Zejian, Taiwan Province Province, China, based on the causes of contracting responsibility. This view makes the same mistake as the third view, which greatly narrows the connotation of contracting responsibility.

From the above analysis, we can see that the four viewpoints do not elaborate the contracting responsibility from the same angle, but they are all more or less incomplete. In the rapidly changing contract society, a definition must be broadly inclusive and infinitely extensible, so as not to be caught off guard by the new situation. Therefore, the author believes that the contracting responsibility refers to the responsibility that one party of the contract should bear for violating the previous contractual obligations based on the principle of good faith and causing losses to the other party at the contracting stage when the contract is not effective.

(2) Liability for negligence in contracting

The liability for contracting negligence is closely related to the establishment of the contract, because the establishment of the contract marks the beginning of contracting responsibility. In essence, the establishment of a contract belongs to the category of expression of will, and the existence of a contract can be explained as long as an agreement is reached. It did not significantly increase the component of legal intervention with the entry into force of the contract, and raised the will of the parties to the mandatory will of the law. But it does not mean that the contract is completely non-binding. As long as both sides reach an agreement, they will be bound. This binding force comes from the expression of the will of all parties. When the offeror makes an offer, he sets rights and obligations for himself. Similarly, the promisor is bound by the promise. In short, once the meaning is formed, the contract will take effect, and all parties will be bound by the will of * * * and perform the agreed obligations. If they fail to fulfill this obligation, they will bear the responsibility of contracting fault.

Based on the principle of good faith, the pre-contract obligations that the parties should undertake include mutual assistance, informing the situation, taking care of each other, protecting both parties, good faith and so on. Anyone who violates one of them shall bear the responsibility for contracting fault. Specifically, the liability for contracting fault must meet the following requirements:

1. This means that the defect occurs in the offer and acceptance, but not in other ways.

2. Damage has occurred. This kind of damage can be borne by one party or both parties. But the damage can only be obvious property damage, and non-property losses are generally not supported. However, some people think that "although mental damage is difficult to identify, it cannot be denied."

3. There is a causal relationship between the negligent act of contracting and the fact of damage. The actor is only responsible for the damage caused by his own fault in contracting. And this kind of fault behavior caused by the parties is reasonable, and it is a loss that a third party other than the parties to the contract will also cause under the same circumstances. This consideration comes from the interests of the fair recipient and the defaulting party, and there will be no interest imbalance due to individual circumstances.

4. The actor is subjectively at fault. This is a requirement for the subjective state of the actor when he assumes the contracting responsibility. In some countries, there is no strict requirement for the subjective fault of the actor. For example, the Anglo-American legal system does not require the actor to be subjectively at fault when applying the promise prohibition system to investigate the actor's contracting responsibility. However, based on the fact that the parties should actively promote the conclusion of the contract and speed up the transfer of property, the author thinks this condition is necessary. Because this condition strictly limits the liability for fault in contracting, and at the same time strengthens the duty of care of both parties, which is conducive to balancing the interests of the breaching party and the observant party.

When the parties have the above four requirements, they should bear the responsibility of contracting fault. The main way to bear the liability for contracting negligence is damages. The scope of damages should be limited to the loss of the other party's subordinate interests caused by one party's breach of good faith obligations, rather than the loss of existing property or the performance of interests. Usually, the expenses can't be compensated, or the interests lost because of relying on the contract that the other party is about to sign.

(2) Anticipated liability for breach of contract

Anticipatory breach of contract is a theory of breach of contract first established in Anglo-American law. It divides breach of contract into expected breach of contract and actual breach of contract (that is, liability for breach of contract) with the expiration of the performance period agreed in the contract as the boundary. It refers to: after the contract comes into effect and before the performance period agreed in the contract comes, one party clearly indicates to the other party that it will not perform its contractual obligations, or one party's own behavior or objective facts imply that it will not perform its contractual obligations as agreed, or one party's own behavior or objective facts imply that it will not perform its contractual obligations as agreed, thus leading to the expected liability for breach of contract. According to the definition of anticipatory breach of contract, it can be divided into express breach of contract and implied breach of contract.

The system of anticipatory breach of contract is recognized by the contract legal systems of all countries in the world, and its existence has its objective inevitability. This system is closely related to the value goals such as justice, efficiency, benefit and security pursued by the laws of today's society, and has the contractual rationality of pursuing economic interests.

The basis of anticipatory breach of contract is also an obligation under the principle of good faith. After the contract is signed, even if it is not expressly stipulated in the contract, it obviously contains the following conditions, that is, the performance of one party is conditional on the ability, will, preparation or performance of the other party. Once a party issues an express or implied notice of breach of contract after the contract comes into effect and before the expiration of the performance period, this condition will be lost. One party's expected breach of contract infringes on the expectation right of both parties to the contract. Although the danger caused by the defaulting party's expected breach of contract is a possibility in the future, it is very likely. If the law does not give creditors rights relief at this stage, it will be very unfavorable and unfair to protect creditors' rights until the expiration of the performance period. At the same time, the adoption of anticipatory breach of contract system at this stage is also a kind of relief for the defaulting party. Because the defaulting party breaches the contract, it is also considered from an economic point of view. If the contract is performed on time, the cost of performance may be higher than the liquidated damages, or even there is no income after performance. Therefore, the adoption of anticipatory breach of contract system is beneficial to all parties to the contract, and the law should also support the application of this theory based on the principle of good faith.

Different countries have different recognition standards for anticipatory breach of contract, so there are also great differences in relief measures. For express breach of contract, Britain can be divided into "breach of warranty" and "breach of conditions". "Breach of warranty" is generally a violation of paragraph, causing general damage; And "violation of conditions" refers to the violation of the main terms, causing great damage, and the law that determines the extent of this damage gives judges discretion. American law divides it into "minor breach" and "major breach". "Slight breach of contract" means that the performance defect has obtained the main benefits of the contract, and the performance defect does not affect the realization of the purpose of the contract; And "material breach of contract" means that the defect of this expected breach of contract seriously affects the creditor's inability to realize the main interests of the contract, so that the purpose of the contract can not be realized at all. Therefore, based on different identification standards, the common law system embodies different relief methods. For express breach of contract, the law gives the non-breaching party a variety of options. Can exercise the right of action to request relief for breach of contract; You can also wait for the defaulting party to perform the contract without exercising its rights, and let the defaulting party bear the actual liability for breach of contract and bear greater loss compensation at the expiration of the contract performance period; You can also suspend the performance of the contract to reduce losses (this usually happens in bilateral contracts, and both parties of the contract enjoy creditor's rights and debts at the same time). However, Article 94 and Article 108 of China's Contract Law stipulate that the standards of express breach of contract are serious breach of contract and general breach of contract respectively. In fact, there is not much difference between these two provisions. In addition, China's contract law does not adopt express breach of contract.

For implied breach of contract, the criterion is subjective judgment with strong subjective factors. The Anglo-American legal system stipulates strict application conditions and judgment standards, and the main remedy is to seek relief measures to suspend the performance of contractual obligations. However, China's "Contract Law" stipulates the system of uneasy defense right and lists its application in law. Compared with the remedy system of anticipatory breach of contract in Britain and America, the system of uneasy defense right has its narrow scope of application. Because the purpose of the right of uneasy defense is to prevent the validity of the other party's claim, it is not the right of claim itself. Once the other party provides effective guarantee, it shall immediately perform its contractual obligations. Does the creditor have the right to terminate the contract if the other party can't provide or can't provide effective guarantee? Or the law should have reasonable provisions in order to better protect the interests of creditors. In this regard, the Anglo-American legal system has innovated the system of early breach of contract, while the continental legal system has created the system of uneasy defense. The system of early breach of contract in common law system includes the right of early prosecution, the right of rescission, the right of refusal, the right of suspension of performance and the right of self-help. "Compared with the civil law system, the uneasy defense system is more applicable. It is applicable to both express and implied early breach of contract, which endows both parties with equal rights and pays more attention to the balance and equality of rights of both parties. Therefore, I am in favor of the early termination system. (3) Liability for breach of contract

After the contract comes into effect, the parties' expression of will means that the obligations agreed by both parties will be transformed into obligations stipulated by law, and the parties must abide by the contractual obligations as they abide by the law. Breach of contractual obligations is a violation of the law. Some scholars believe that the performance of this contractual obligation is the first payment obligation of contractual debt. When the contract debt is not fulfilled, the second payment obligation of the contract debt occurs, which is actually the responsibility for breach of contract. Liability for breach of contract, also known as actual liability for breach of contract, refers to the liability that the debtor should bear when the performance period expires. The "non-performance" here includes both no performance at all and partial non-performance. "Agreed obligations" refers to the main contractual obligations and the subordinate contractual obligations.

The actual liability for breach of contract always revolves around "contractual obligations". It can be said that the correct performance of "contractual obligations" is related to whether the actual liability for breach of contract occurs. When the contract comes into effect, the creditor-debtor relationship of the contract arises between the two parties, that is, the debt of the contract. Contract debt includes two aspects: one is contract creditor's rights, and the other is contract debt. Creditor's right, as a kind of property right, is a kind of right relief given to creditors by law when debts fail to perform contractual obligations correctly. As a right, contractual creditor's right is also an agreed debt. Generally speaking, contractual obligations include legal obligations and contractual obligations, and contractual obligations are obligations paid at the request of creditors. Strictly speaking, contractual obligations include principal obligations and subordinate obligations, and some also include collateral obligations. The main payment obligation determines the type of contract, which is an inherent, necessary and obligatory obligation in the contract. In a bilateral contract, the main payment obligation constitutes the reciprocal payment obligation, which can be rejected before the other party is the reciprocal payment obligation. However, if the obligations from the contract constitute the liability for breach of contract, that is, without the obligations from the contract, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract, and the interests of creditors cannot be met to the maximum extent.

There have always been differences between the two legal systems on the constitutive requirements of liability for breach of contract. The traditional theory of continental law system holds that the constitutive requirements are four aspects, namely, breach of contract, damage facts, and the causal relationship between breach of contract and damage facts, and the breaching party is at fault. In common law system, only one element of breach of contract is usually considered. At present, article 107 of China's contract law stipulates the principle of no-fault liability, which shows that it has absorbed the advantages of Anglo-American legal system to some extent. Establishing the principle of no-fault in contract law not only adapts to the development of market economy, enhances the responsibility consciousness of the parties, but also meets the requirements of the principle of fairness. When both parties establish contractual obligations through voluntary negotiation, such rights and obligations are entirely their own choice, that is to say, they are voluntary and true. If there is any violation, the breaching party shall bear the responsibility, and the observant party shall be punished with relief, so as to show the mandatory nature of the law, and at the same time, it is beneficial for both parties to pay careful attention to debugging in the conclusion of the contract and avoid bringing adverse burdens to themselves.

Liability for breach of contract mainly includes: damages, payment of liquidated damages, loss of deposit or double return of deposit, termination of contract, etc. , mainly to compensate creditors for the loss of expected benefits due to the debtor's improper performance. When a breach of contract occurs and the interests of creditors are harmed, people can enjoy the right of claim against the debtor, making the debtor bear the disadvantage. It should be noted here that damages are divided into direct damages and indirect damages. Direct loss is the actual amount of loss, which can be judged intuitively. For indirect damage, it is necessary to add a reasonable and predictable causal relationship between the damage fact and the breach of contract. That is, when concluding a contract, the parties can foresee the scope of damage caused by breach of contract, beyond which the breaching party should not bear the responsibility. The theory of reasonable foresight first appeared in the French Civil Code and was formally established in the case of 1854 Hadeler v. Baxandall. At present, the provisions of Article 1 13 of China's contract law also reflect this theoretical spirit. The theory of reasonable foresight has stopped the abuse of people's relief right to a certain extent and protected the interests of debtors. In addition, the academic circles also have different views on the compensation for non-property losses due to breach of contract, but most people are cautious because this kind of damage compensation is very subjective and has no market value. But also worry about non-property interests (such as personality rights, reputation rights, etc. ) is too "commercialized" and sloppy to be regulated. However, in some cases in China, it should be said that non-property damage is recognized in the case of non-performance of debts, or at least it can be explained from this objective standpoint. The author thinks that only when the tort liability overlaps with the liability for breach of contract can the creditor be given the relief of non-property damages, so that the interests of the creditor can be satisfied.

(d) Post-contract liabilities

When the contract is terminated, do the parties still have contractual obligations? This problem was rarely discussed in the theoretical circle before, but it does exist in reality. For example, after the performance of the contract, whether the parties to the contract know each other's business secrets in the process of contract negotiation and performance can use and spread them without authorization, and whether they should bear the responsibility for the losses caused to the other party? This involves the issue of post-contract liability. Post-contract liability is the liability for compensation for losses caused by the parties' failure or improper performance of post-contract obligations.

The premise of post-contract liability is that the parties have violated post-contract obligations. Post-contractual obligations are essentially the application of the principle of good faith in contracts. After the termination of the contract, based on the principle of good faith, there is still a certain relationship between the parties. Some scholars call it collateral obligation in the post-contract stage. Its main contents are notification obligation, assistance obligation and confidentiality obligation. These contents are absorbed by China's "Contract Law" and embodied in Article 92. At the same time, the parties to the contract may also agree that after the contract is terminated, both parties shall perform some incidental obligations. As long as it does not violate the fundamental provisions, the law should protect it. For example, the warranty obligation within a certain period after buying shoes is the agreed post-contract obligation.

In the constitutive requirements of post-contract liability, it should include the existence of damage facts, the behavior of violating post-contract obligations, causality and subjective fault. It should be noted that the subjective fault here is presumed, and the actor who violates the post-contract obligation should bear the burden of proof to prove that he is not at fault for the occurrence of the damage, and be exempted from the liability for compensation after the proof is established; If the evidence is insufficient or cannot be proved, it is presumed to be established and will constitute post-contract liability. The main ways of undertaking post-contract liability are damages and continuing to perform.

In addition, it is necessary to clarify post-contractual obligations and actual contractual obligations. First of all, they happened at different times. The actual contractual obligations occur from the effective date of the contract to the expiration date of the performance period of the contract; Then the contractual obligation occurs after the termination of the contract. Moreover, the forms of responsibility generated by the two are also different. Actual contractual obligations generate actual liability for breach of contract; Then the contractual obligation arises, and then the contractual responsibility. Finally, they have different positions in the contract. The actual contractual obligations are in the main position, and then the contractual obligations may have nothing to do with the realization of the contract, but only incidental. The third chapter is the reconstruction of China's contract responsibility system.

(A) the status quo of China's legal system of contract liability

China's contract liability system, based on the "cause method" of the form of breach of contract, can be seen in China's contract law at present, that is, based on the principle of good faith, it roughly stipulates the liability for contracting negligence, the liability for breach of contract and the liability after contract. It can be seen that the form of responsibility is incomplete, the provisions are too rough, and many details have not been clearly resolved.

(B) Reconstruction of the contract responsibility system

In view of the imperfection of the legal system of contract liability in China, I think that legislative measures should be strengthened first to make it more complete. Secondly, combining the advantages of "remedy for breach of contract" in common law system, the concept of "contractual liability" should be changed to "remedy for breach of contract". Thirdly, as an important remedy for breach of contract, contract termination is included in the chapter "Relief for breach of contract" and should not be put together with the provisions on contract modification and termination. Although the termination of the contract is related to the change and termination of the contract, in essence, the termination of the contract is mainly due to one party's breach of contract and the other party's early termination to protect its own interests. From the perspective of the observant party, it is a remedial measure taken by the observant party, while from the perspective of the defaulting party, the termination of the contract will bring some adverse consequences to the defaulting party. At present, China's contract law stipulates that the dissolution of a contract includes legal dissolution, agreement dissolution and agreement dissolution. Legal rescission is guaranteed by the state through legal force, while agreed rescission and agreed rescission belong to the category of expression of will in essence. Incorporating it into the chapter of "Relief for Breach of Contract" can not only improve the relief of the recipient, but also help to improve the duty of care of the defaulting party. Finally, use "fundamental breach" as the standard of breach. At present, the standard of breach of contract in our country is divided into major breach of contract and general breach of contract, which is too limited, while fundamental breach of contract is to limit the right to terminate the contract in form, which essentially lies in balancing the interests of the breaching party and the non-breaching party and social interests. Moreover, fundamental breach of contract is applicable to four forms of contract liability, and its content is broader and more detailed, so it should be absorbed by our laws, which can also prevent the abuse of creditors' relief rights and protect the legitimate interests of debtors. In a word, China's contract responsibility system should be reconstructed to meet the needs of social and economic development. refer to

1, Research on Contract Liability, by Cui Jianyuan, Jilin University Press, 1992.

2. Basic Theory of Law (New Edition), edited by the Law Teaching and Research Section of Peking University Law Department, published by Peking University.

Society, 1987.

3. General Principles of Contract Law, edited by Wang Liming and Cui Jianyuan, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1996.

4. Research on China's Contract Liability, edited by Yang Lixin, Management Journal of Henan University of Political Science and Law, 2000.

5. Discussion on Several Basic Theoretical Issues of Contracting Responsibility, edited by Lan Lan, Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), 2000.

6. Legal Value and Economic Analysis of Anticipated Breach of Contract System, Shi, Journal of Shenyang Normal University (Social Science Edition), 2000.

7. The Right of Legal Relief for Early Breach of Contract and Comparative Study, Qi Enping, Journal of Tianjin Normal University, 2000.

8. Basic Theory of Law, edited by Shen, Peking University Publishing House, 1988. & lt/p & gt；

If you are satisfied, please accept it.