论我国可撤销合同变更权的适当保留

On the Appropriate Reservation of the Right to Change Revocable Contract in China

摘要: 《民法总则》和《民法典》删除了关于可撤销合同变更权的规定，完全颠覆了以往《民法通则》与《合同法》的做法，引发了学者对可撤销合同变更权的激烈讨论。支持删除可撤销合同变更权的学者认为其在实践中作用较小、很少有国家以立法的方式设立以及违反了意思自治原则。本文认为可撤销合同变更权已经在我国存续了三十年之久，必定具有相应的理论依据和实际意义，适当保留合同变更权并不会违反意思自治原则和平等原则，反而可以实现鼓励交易的目的，更符合如今市场经济的需求。我国应当根据当事人是否存在主观恶意将不同情况分类处理，当发生显失公平、乘人之危、欺诈以及胁迫时，应当赋予受害方合同变更权；当发生重大误解时，合同相对方未有主观恶意，不应当赋予当事人合同变更权。

Abstract: The General Provisions of The Civil Law and the Civil Code have deleted the provisions on the right to change revocable contracts, completely subverting the previous practices of the General Principles of the Civil Law and the Contract Law, and triggering a heated discussion among scholars on the right to change revocable contracts. Scholars who support the deletion of revocable contract change right believe that it plays a small role in practice, and few countries set it up in the form of legislation and violate the principle of will autonomy. This paper holds that the right to change the revocable contract has existed in China for 30 years, and it must have the corresponding theoretical basis and practical significance. Properly retaining the right to change the contract will not violate the principle of autonomy and the principle of equality, but can achieve the purpose of encouraging transactions, which is more in line with the needs of today’s market economy. China should classify different situations according to whether the parties have subjective malice. When there is obvious unfairness, taking advantage of others, fraud and coercion, the injured party should be given the right to change the contract; when a major misunderstanding occurs, the opposite party of the contract has no subjective malice, and the parties shall not be given the right to change the contract.