摘要
学界和司法实践中对我国《合同法》第64条的理解和适用存在着争议。否定说认为该条文没有对第三人利益合同做出规定,第三人不享有直接请求权;宽泛肯定说认为《合同法》第64条规定了"第三人利益合同"以及"债务人依照约定而为交付"两种情况;不足肯定说认为该条文实际上规定了第三人利益合同,第三人可依据该条的规定享有履行请求权,只是该规定尚不明确,在我国尚未形成第三人利益制度。经过比较分析,宽泛肯定说更具合理性和现实意义。
Scholars and judicial officers have a dispute about understanding and application of the Article 64 of Contract law of the PRC 1999.Some people say that the provision does not provide for the contract of the third party’s interests,the third personisnoten titled to theright to directly request.Other people say that the Article 64 of Contract law of the PRC 1999 includes two cases about ＂the contract of the third party’sinterests＂ and ＂delivered viatheac cused and for the people＂.Another people say that the provision has actually stated the contract of the third party’s interests,the third person isentitled to the right to directly request,except that the provision is not clear,the system of interests of the third party has notyet formed.By comparison,the second theory has more reasonable and practical significance.
出处
《黑龙江省政法管理干部学院学报》
2014年第3期67-70,共4页
Journal of Heilongjiang Administrative Cadre College of Politics and Law
关键词
合同第三人
履行请求权
法律解释
第三人利益合同
The third party of the contract
Right to performance
Legal interpretation
the Contract of the third party’s interests
