委托合同任意解除权限制性约定效力探究

Exploring the Effect of the Restrictive Covenant on the Right of Arbitrary Cancellation of the Entrustment Contract

摘要: 《民法典》第933条关于委托合同任意解除权的规定相较于原《合同法》更加完善，区分无偿委托合同和有偿委托合同，对任意解除权的行使造成的损害赔偿范围作出不同规定，但未对当事人能否对任意解除权的行使进行限制性约定作出说明。司法实践中在对当事人作出的限制性约定条款的效力进行认定时，不能一概而论，应首先明确当事人可以对任意解除权作出限制性约定，再区分无偿委托合同与有偿委托合同分别适用不同规则认定约定的效力。

Abstract: Article 933 of the Civil Code on the right of arbitrary cancellation of entrustment contracts is more complete than the original Contract Law, distinguishing between gratuitous entrustment contracts and remunerated entrustment contracts, and making different provisions on the scope of damages caused by the exercise of the right of arbitrary cancellation, but it does not specify whether the parties can make restrictive agreements on the exercise of the right of arbitrary cancellation. In judicial practice, when determining the validity of the restrictive covenants made by the parties, it is not possible to make a generalisation, and it should be made clear that the parties can make restrictive covenants on the right of arbitrary cancellation, and then differentiate between gratuitous and remunerated entrustment contracts and determine the validity of the covenants by applying different rules respectively.